Question on Cypher, Luther, and the Lion.

[FerociousBeast]

Ok, so my FLGS keeps calling me a traitor, and of the worst sort, simply because I play DA. Which is cool, I'll just keep stomping most of them and dragging them off to our 'happy fun place' on the Rock.

d-(^_~)z

But a bit of conversation arose where we seem to be in conflict with. Apparently they believe that Cypher is in fact, the Lion himself. When I mentioned that the Primarch was in a section of the Rock being watched over by the Watchers in the Dark that is inaccessible by all save the Watchers.

 

Thats when they said that they open that part of the Rock and found nothing. I am thoroughly convinced that they meant Luthors chamber at first, but something was mentioned about an older codex.

 

Anyone have any idea what they're talking about?

 

To re-iterate the points:

 

Cypher is the Lion

The Dark Angels opened the supposed chamber where the Lion lay, despite our codex saying they couldn't reach it, and found it empty.

I thought that only Azrael knew about Luthors chamber but they said 'THEY checked the chamber and it was empty" They the DA or they as a general term?

 

If it's a difference between codex editions then I can accept it, GW has a knack for re-writing history here and there, which is fine, it's their world after all.

 

Sounds to me like some other Dark Angel player has been doing the good work of the Inner Circle, obfuscating and skewing the truth to confuse the unworthy! My advice would be to make up some wild story, claim you read it in Angels of Darkness, and leave the poor sots at your FLGS in an even darker gloom. :)

[Brother dean]

It's in there!  Trust me....

[Phoebus]

Something that occurred to me today...

 

There are a lot of interesting things mentioned in the Cypher dataslate... but one of the more interesting bits is what isn't mentioned.

 

Since our last Codex, one of the key themes of the Disciples of Caliban is that the Inner Circle suspected that they were created specifically to hunt Cypher.  Not one mention is made of any relationship or run-ins between the Disciples and Cypher, though.  I don't think it's a simple matter of omission; several other Chapters of the Unforgiven are mentioned throughout the dataslate where the various hunts on Cypher are concerned.

Which raises a topic for a different thread, perhaps:  what is the true purpose of the Disciples of Caliban, if not to hunt Cypher?

[FarFromSam]

This thread is packed with tons of knowledge, and I appreciate that it is generally sourced. As always Phoebus you do a fine job of articulating the legion's arguments. I love reading through your posts as they contain what I would like to say, only done with a silver tongue, and I learn stuff I overlooked when I read them. Well done!

All in all, the skepticism of fellow hobbyists and DA players actually falls in line with the DA feel if you ask me, in a way I kind of like it. I don't need to answer to them!!

Sounds to me like some other Dark Angel player has been doing the good work of the Inner Circle, obfuscating and skewing the truth to confuse the unworthy! My advice would be to make up some wild story, claim you read it in Angels of Darkness, and leave the poor sots at your FLGS in an even darker gloom.

These are two of my favorite things about the Unforgiven! I will admit to first arguing over the Lion's loyalty at the end of AoD, but once I embraced it I have had nothing but fun spreading misinformation. Stuff like Azrael is really Luthor, we wear robes to cover marks of chaos, just as much nonsense as possible to see how much they'll believe. If they want to call me a traitor, fine, but expect to find me laughing when I hear them repeating it to other people. :P

[Memento Of Prospero]

It is very clear to me that the scope given on the Dark Angels in unclear. This is done intentionally. A great story and background is one that spawns endless debate.

Was unclear. Only the most hardbitten critics of the Dark Angels (and those with an uncompromising sense of humor) maintained the picture wasn't cleared up after Fallen Angels. After "Savage Weapons", "The Lion" and The Unremembered Empire, though, there's no question which way the Dark Angels' loyalties lie.

>The Lion is the embodiment of cold calculating logic. Unlike Guilliman or Dorn, he is not bound by a code of honour. The Lion will follow the rules as long as they suit his needs.

That's not an accurate representation of the man. Your take implies a self-serving basis for the decision to not follow the rules. In fact, said decision has always been made for a larger good. Per the other thread, there's no point in "fighting honorably" against an opponent who is demonstrably dishonorable, sadistic, and treacherous. The Lion wasn't cheating Curze at cards for personal profit; he was seeking to end the life of a cold-blooded murderer whose Legion was responsible for some of the most horrific crimes committed against humanity. Similarly, there was no profit or personal gain to be found in reinstating the Librarius. It was a tactical decision, pure and simple. What you're doing is taking obedience to the illogical extreme: to the point where you obey your master so completely that you are no longer able to serve him properly.

Many of his actions can be INTERPRETED in many ways, but one thing is certain: He broke the Edict of Nikaea which the Emperor himself declared all who broke it his enemies. Guilliman faced the same problem at Calth and did not do it. Corax did not. Magnus did and paid the price.

Your comparisons don't take context into account. Guilliman's battle was planetary in scope, and he didn't have control over it for the majority of its duration. You're assuming a choice was made when there was none available to Guilliman.

By contrast, the Lion's battle was an affair in which he was able to make informed decisions. He had real-time control over his forces. You're upset that the Lion decided that it was unacceptable to lose his flagship to creatures that couldn't be hurt by conventional weapons. What you should be upset about is that Gav Thorpe didn't take into account (for one reason or another) Know No Fear (which preceded "The Lion"). Per Abnett, Guilliman and the Ultramarines discovered that, while most ranged weapons are ineffective, melee weapons - and powered ones, especially - could affect their supernatural opponents. Per Thorpe, though, no weapons in the Dark Angels arsenal worked.

Thus, you're really comparing apples to oranges... and on two different levels, at that.

Why did he do this? Because it no longer suited his needs. Regardless of what you think of the necessity of the moment - this makes him a traitor in the eyes of his father.

So the status of the Dark Angels depends on your views of what degree of loyalty is required to be considered a loyalist legion.

That's a combination of pure conjecture on your part along with highly selective criteria.

Where the former is concerned, you're assuming you know what the Emperor is thinking. You ignore, however, the fact that the Emperor didn't call the Council of Nikaea of his own volition. He did so because a minority of his sons requested him to, and he delivered a conservative vote when the council came to a deadlock. And even then, his vote was to appease a reactionary element within the primarchs at a time when Librarians did not appear to be needed. It's disingenuous, frankly, to assume that the Emperor would have maintained the same train of thought in the middle of a rebellion defined by the supernatural and the psychic, of which one of the chief rebels was the most vocal proponent for the abolition of Librarians!

Furthermore, this idea flies in the face of the fact that the Emperor not only didn't punish Malcador when he began recruiting psykers for his "Knights Errant"; he granted his own genetic material for the creation of a Chapter made up entirely of psykers. If that's not evidence that the Emperor's intent on the subject had changed, I don't know what is.

Where your counter-argument is concerned, that the Lion could not have known those things, see above. Obeying the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law never served any master well.

And where the latter is concerned, nothing needs to be said besides the fact that you seize on highly dubious examples of "disloyalty" while ignoring the overwhelming body of evidence: that the Lion and the Dark Angels actively fought against declared rebels, and were prepared to fight against those who claimed to be loyal but appeared to be ready to form their own empire. You can't possibly read the ending of "The Lion" or go through The Unremembered Empire and seriously claim that there is a "loyalty issue" anymore.

Again, I'm not trying to be rude, but that's why I joked about you trying to troll me earlier/in another thread. It's just not a serious argument, man. I'm only responding because I was up to watch a late-night football game and I need something to occupy my time until I pass out. The last thing I want, though, is for those who haven't read the Heresy stories to take you at your word.

Also, turning a blind eye to a problem you know exists makes you equally responsible to the concequenses of the problem. He knew something was wrong with Luther and dodged the issue until it was too late.

Nah. That's just assumption rearing her ugly head again.

Up until the end of Fallen Angels, the Lion has no reason to assume Luther didn't accept his punishment. Everything we saw at the end of Descent of Angels and the beginning of its sequel was that Luther was remorseful and torn over what he almost did. The performance of his duties at Caliban was almost flawless until the taint began tearing the planet apart again. He provided optimal numbers of men and materiel to the Legion.

It's not until "Savage Weapons" that we get a hint that the Lion might know something is amiss with Luther. It's not the ending of "The Lion" when we find out he acknowledges events on Caliban. Nothing about that story suggests he "dodged" anything. Seriously, read it: he simply prioritizes the survival of the Imperium and the continuation of the Emperor's rule over the fate of his own legion.

You cannot choose to forfeit your code of honour because your opponent is dishonourable. The truly honourable follow their own code of honour, always. Not just when it fits "the greater good". Otherwise you are no better than an opportunist. Dorn understands that all too well and proves it when he destroys the secrecy of the Master Assassins and their plots to assassinate Horus at the end of Nemesis.

Guilliman did not break the Edict on his own flagship when it was infested with daemons thanks to Lorgar. It is the same thing, regard of differences between authors in regards to daemons.

[Elodin]

Even if it was mentioned in an older codex, I'm fairly certain newer codices hold priority over old ones when there is a conflict.

Even if Cypher did have the Lion sword (Which I believe he does, as I'm pretty sure the Sword of Luther was already found) it wouldn't point to him being the Lion, as the sword vanished after his fight with Luther before he was carried off by the Watchers in the Dark.

[Phoebus]

Wolf_Pack,

 

Different individuals have different concepts of honour.  I'm not sure any of us are qualified to say what the Lion's code consisted of.  Right now, you're just projecting your own... and Dorn's... on the Lion.  How valid is that, though?  Is your definition of "honour" the end all-be all?  How would a pragmatic, rational individual like the Lion feel about such a narrow definition?

 

Would it shock you if someone told you that it was fundamentally dishonourable to wage war on people who simply wanted to be free and didn't want anything to do with the Imperium?  Or, if full war is too broad a concept, what about orbitally bombarding brave warriors who don't have spaceships or guns capable of bringing them down?  What about the notion of Legiones Astartes - never mind Primarchs - fighting "mere humans" - does that sound particularly honourable to you?  Or how about the fact that any of the Primarchs were willing to be party to an Imperium that had considered Curze and his warriors a viable asset for decades before finally sanctioning him?  How is that "honourable"?  ;)

 

Consider all those things before you try to label as "dishonourable" someone who tried using a cheap shot to kill an individual who had been torturing, mutilating, and massacring non-combatants on a scale and scope that baffles the human imagination.  An individual, who, by the way, would have absolutely continued doing so had the Lion lost their little duel.  Here's a word that I would use to describe the mindset wherein you leave it up to your personal prowess to decide if a horror on Curze's scale would end once and for all:  "hubris".  Also, "reckless", "arrogant".  ;)

[Memento Of Prospero]

What would you say if the opposite had happened? What if it were Curze had struck an underhanded blow?

 

We both know that he would have been framed as the lowest of the low, a dishonourable cur. But the Lion gets a pass because it's somehow acceptable for the greater good? The road to damnation is paved in good intentions.

 

What is the worth of an Emperium where the ends justify the means? Honour is about standards, and upholding them.

[Phoebus]

Where the first point is concerned, I'd expect nothing less from Curze. The real determining factor would be the context behind his decision.

As far as good intentions, ends justifying means, and standards... I think I covered that already. Meaning no offense, what Imperium and what Great Crusade have you been reading about? Because the ones I've been reading about were all about ends justifying means. The "ends" the Emperor was pursuing were safeguarding Mankind from Chaos. The "means" by which he meant to achieve this was the absolutely brutal subjugation - through total warfare - of any human society that didn't want to be a part of his Imperium. Given all that, I honestly can't believe you're hung up on the Lion pulling a fast one on Curze, man!

Again, one man's definition of honour has nothing to do with that of another man... and you're assuming a sense of honour that existed in this Imperium in words only.

[Aleax]

Hi

What would you say if the opposite had happened? What if it were Curze had struck an underhanded blow?

We both know that he would have been framed as the lowest of the low, a dishonourable cur. But the Lion gets a pass because it's somehow acceptable for the greater good? The road to damnation is paved in good intentions.

What is the worth of an Emperium where the ends justify the means? Honour is about standards, and upholding them.

It sounds that you make the Dark Angels the source of all "the-end-justifies-the-means" in 40k. It looks like also you have a problem with this line of thinking, and I approve, the end justifies the means is not pretty...

 

But basically, every SM chapter or primarch uses the end justifies the means in 40K, as well as the Emperor. It's just that Chaos is even worse, so the SM look like the good guys...

 

Also, there are 4 kind of guys concerning DA and their fluff. Those who dislike them and make an argument to proove anyone why they are the baddies, the neutral or unknowledgable, the DA themselves, and the Fluff connoisseurs.

 

Let's only take the connoisseurs because they are the most knowledgeable (the Dark Angels in this thread were also connoisseurs but that's besides the point): Dark Angels are loyal to the Emperor.

 

*editing spelling errors*

[Bryan Blaire]

Um, the Blood Angels are mutants that feast on the blood of their allies on the battlefield. Not real honorable folks there. Not to mention they are shiny and sparkly in their pretty armor (to disguise their rather hideous nature), somewhat resembling things from that vampire series set in the northwest.

 

The Space Wolves are mutants as well and carry abhuman genes beyond even those of the Space Marines.

 

Salamanders are mutant Space Marines.

 

Guilliman declared a second Imperium.

 

So basically almost everyone was disloyal or mutated in some fashion.

 

This vaunted Imperium is a crap hole that none of us would want to live in, it treats humans as little more than animals or cogs in a machine and life is valueless. It is the embodiment of "Ends Justify the Means." There is no honor in the Imperium. The Council of High Lords are a bureaucratic mess that was possibly not the Emperor's intended end game and are traitors to the humanity they supposedly represent because they do nothing to correct the Imperium.

 

Like I said, the only failing of the Lion in the Lion vs Curze situation is that the Lion's strike didn't kill him. Honorable, dishonorable, who cares. At least he didn't almost fall to Khorne.

[facmanpob]

Most folks tend to become less friendly and chatty and more mission-focused when thrust into such situations. That seemed to be par for the course on all my military deployments. Battle-buddies who normally joke around tend to shut the [expletive] up and focus when their friends are getting blown up or when they're planning for a mission.

Just picked up on this point from Page 2.... when I was a navigator in the Royal Navy, my bridge crew nicknamed me "the Nastigator", because I used to get so brusque during stressful operational situations. And yet, during quiet overnight watches, we would happily play Trivial Pursuit with the engineering watch using the bridge-engineering communication system

[Brother dean]

 

 

Like I said, the only failing of the Lion in the Lion vs Curze situation is that the Lion's strike didn't kill him. Honorable, dishonorable, who cares. At least he didn't almost fall to Khorne.

 

I re-read that last night and if Curze hadnt been focused on trying to turn the Lion he would have heard the Lion's "Forgive me brother" which was uttered before the strike as the warning it was and danced out of the way...

[Tanhausen]

Holy Moly Bryan, someone had a cynic day hahahaha