Why did each primarch turn do chaos or stay loyal

[Balthamal]

Konrad Curze. Night Haunter's turn seems to be a trifecta of reasons. First, after his legion's actions he was already nearly a renegade; it was a small step to treason. Second, he was deeply critical of the Emperor's seeming hypocrisy is preaching grand ideals and them employing monsters like himself. Third, having been ignored and disdained for pointing out that hypocrisy he was eager to prove his way was right (or at least needed) after all.

 

 

On the contrary with the second point, he seems to have accepted that humans as a species were incapable of reigning in their tendency towards self destruction and that fear of retribution was the only force capable of preventing humanity from tearing itself apart. In Prince of Crows he openly acknowledges that he was happy to take the sins of his people upon his shoulders so that they wouldn't be reduced to his level and that inevitably there would always been monsters like himself - either tearing the species apart or (as in his case) being a monster to allow others to prosper. Even though it's also stated in the book that whilst his intentions, at least to start, were noble he did eventually become addicted to the intoxicating power of the terror he inspired in others. As Sevatar put it "You have a savage nobility father, but this is far more savage than noble."

[Dantay VI]

Is it not more likely that Horus was jealous of Sanguinius and would rather him dead than have Sanguinius usurp the throne he was trying to take?

 

Also didn't Fulgrim become possessed at the point where he had Ferrus at his mercy, but couldn't make the killing stroke? If memory serves correctly, he allowed the Daemon in to finish the job. Knowing he couldn't do it, and knowing Ferrus would kill him. So he took the cowards option and let the daemon do it for him thinking he would then survive... Which he does, just not in the manner he intended.

[Arkangilos]

Is it not more likely that Horus was jealous of Sanguinius and would rather him dead than have Sanguinius usurp the throne he was trying to take?

 

Also didn't Fulgrim become possessed at the point where he had Ferrus at his mercy, but couldn't make the killing stroke? If memory serves correctly, he allowed the Daemon in to finish the job. Knowing he couldn't do it, and knowing Ferrus would kill him. So he took the cowards option and let the daemon do it for him thinking he would then survive... Which he does, just not in the manner he intended.

Of course it is XD but it could theoretically be both.

[Lord Asvaldir]

Is it not more likely that Horus was jealous of Sanguinius and would rather him dead than have Sanguinius usurp the throne he was trying to take?

 

 

I've never seen it mentioned anywhere that Horus was jealous of Sanguinius, nor do I see why he would be. 

[Dantay VI]

Doesn't Horus say in Horus Rising or False Gods during one of the times he felt under strain, that Sanguinius should have been Warmaster, not him.

 

He would also see that Sanguinius got a statue when Erebus took him through the warp even though he did not.... If there was any one Primarch who would be a threat to his rule as the new Emperor, it would be Sanguinius..

[Kriegriss]

I believe it is said in a few BL books that many primarchs felt Sanguinius was the runner up or even better choice. In one story I forget where maybe fear to tread horus admits that Sanguinius has more humanity then him and his nobility and compasion make him a threat to horus' supremacy in the new order

[DuskRaider]

I think one of the main reasons for Mortarion to ally himself with Horus is loyalty. The Emperor gave him no reason to remain loyal. He hid away in his Fortress far from the war, while Horus was constantly on the front lines, and as a soldier first and foremost, Mortarion would rather follow a leader like that (which shares more of his own traits).

 

His upbringing had a lot to do with his final decision. His adoptive father was a tyrant. He ruled above all high atop the mountains in his Fortress, out of sight but always seeing. He had no mercy for those below him, not even the other necromantic warlords. When the Emperor showed up, he may have seemed like he was much different, but as Mortarion was absorbed into the ranks of the Great Crusade, he saw that it was the same thing, only on a galactic scale.

 

After aligning himself with Horus, I believe he begins to see that the Warmaster is just a different side of the same coin, and as he reveals in Scars, has plans to eventually topple Horus as well.

[Ishagu]

I don't think any of the Primarchs have a particularly great reason for turning, other than Horus as I guess he was "corrupted".

 

Fulgrim, after having his body stolen by a Deamon actually has greater reason to distrust Chaos than any reason he has for following it, but I guess he too was "corrupted"

 

 

Mortarion, Perturabo don't make sense to me, really - especially Perturabo who takes an oath very seriously and he swore loyalty to the Emperor. As for Angron, he's never thinking straight so it's a likely one.

[1ncarnadine]

Mortarion, Perturabo don't make sense to me, really - especially Perturabo who takes an oath very seriously and he swore loyalty to the Emperor. As for Angron, he's never thinking straight so it's a likely one.

 

They also had oaths to Horus. It's like a really messy in-family divorce, where your uncle is family by blood but your aunt did more for you and your family than the uncle ever did. Or like when you know a couple who are both great friends of yours and they break up. You're pretty much going to come down on one side or another, and choosing one side often means the other one won't deal with you anymore. 

 

You know, except with galaxy-burning armies.

[Remus Ventanus.]

I do think some of the loyal primarch could turn away from the emperor, but not go to chaos. What i mean is that i believe there are some who would choose the imperium over the emperor himself. Lion, guilliman, khan are examples in my opinion. While i doubt they would ever turn from the imperium, and certainly not to chaos, i do believe there true loyalties lie above the emperor. Russ, dorn and sanginius would never turn from the emperor.

[Balthamal]

It's mentioned somewhere (don't quote me) that several of the Primarchs felt Sanguinius was the more deserving choice of Warmaster because whereas Horus was indeed supreme in the art of war, Sanguinius possessed the traits needed to rule once the Great Crusade was done and (theoretically) peace reigned through the galaxy. As Ahriman notes when meeting him at Nikea, Sanguinius, when taking his measure "looked for strength to harness rather than a weakness to exploit" as was the case with Leman Russ. That's a pretty significant difference right there. Whilst I think Horus would certainly have the ability to do both, given his personality, he'd do it to engineer events to his own outcomes rather than what could strictly be "best". After all he made no secret of the fact that he wanted to be Warmaster, nor did he hide the enjoyment he took from being the number one son.

 

 

I do think some of the loyal primarch could turn away from the emperor, but not go to chaos. What i mean is that i believe there are some who would choose the imperium over the emperor himself. Lion, guilliman, khan are examples in my opinion. While i doubt they would ever turn from the imperium, and certainly not to chaos, i do believe there true loyalties lie above the emperor. Russ, dorn and sanginius would never turn from the emperor.

 

Personally I think the argument can be made for Gulliman being the most loyal of all (aside from Alpharius because you know, reasons) I mean upon finding out that half of the Legions are in open rebellion and that Terra could be burned already, he doesn't assemble the remaining strength of the XIII and make full speed to Earth. He stopped, assessed his strengths and then began to look to the continuity of the Imperium. It's implied during KNF/UE that Gulliman believes that the Emperor's ambition is for the Imperium to be the bastion of the human race in the future so he looks to perpetuate it (which with 10,000 years hindsight is pretty much game over) even knowing that by doing so he could be 1) rebelling himself 2) abandoning his father and brothers in their need, to push through with what he believes to be the Emperor's vision. That takes an unbelievable amount of dedication to the Emperor, his vision or both. We know Gulliman is renowned for his logical approach to all things but he does display emotion when the right nerve is touched (no one could really say that punching Kor Pharon's heart out was cold and calculating violence) so he he bites down on the desire to see Horus., Lorgar and laterly Angron dead and looks to salvage what he can.

 

Sanguinius, Dorn, Corax and Vulkan's loyalties were all rock solid along with Russ (some very interesting perspective on his view of his role and how different he could have been without maintaining Fenris as his hearth) Ferrus is dead, Gulliman is mention above leaving the Lion.

 

Whilst we can see he was indeed solid in his loyalty - "Loyalty is it's own reward" - I think it more to do with how his own standing would be affected by that loyalty. He tell's Perturabo that when Horus is dealt with a new Warmaster will be needed and he intends to see that it's himself. To me that sounds like a very calculating mind at work - The Imperium will be the dominant entity in the galaxy and as the crown prince of that entity he'd be pretty much at where he'd want to be.

[Legionator]

I think Lion was as loyal as Russ or Dorn. Remember his saying of "Loyalty is its own reward", trying to reach Terra with the intention of avenge the Emperor if he was dead. Lion was a dark figure during the crusade and heresy, I agree with that but his loyalty was genuine.

 

İn the series, Chaos gods claim that they had struck a deal with the Emperor before the primarch project. What if half of the primarchs were destined to fall to Chaos?

[Remus Ventanus.]

It's mentioned somewhere (don't quote me) that several of the Primarchs felt Sanguinius was the more deserving choice of Warmaster because whereas Horus was indeed supreme in the art of war, Sanguinius possessed the traits needed to rule once the Great Crusade was done and (theoretically) peace reigned through the galaxy. As Ahriman notes when meeting him at Nikea, Sanguinius, when taking his measure "looked for strength to harness rather than a weakness to exploit" as was the case with Leman Russ. That's a pretty significant difference right there. Whilst I think Horus would certainly have the ability to do both, given his personality, he'd do it to engineer events to his own outcomes rather than what could strictly be "best". After all he made no secret of the fact that he wanted to be Warmaster, nor did he hide the enjoyment he took from being the number one son.

 

 

I do think some of the loyal primarch could turn away from the emperor, but not go to chaos. What i mean is that i believe there are some who would choose the imperium over the emperor himself. Lion, guilliman, khan are examples in my opinion. While i doubt they would ever turn from the imperium, and certainly not to chaos, i do believe there true loyalties lie above the emperor. Russ, dorn and sanginius would never turn from the emperor.

 

Personally I think the argument can be made for Gulliman being the most loyal of all (aside from Alpharius because you know, reasons) I mean upon finding out that half of the Legions are in open rebellion and that Terra could be burned already, he doesn't assemble the remaining strength of the XIII and make full speed to Earth. He stopped, assessed his strengths and then began to look to the continuity of the Imperium. It's implied during KNF/UE that Gulliman believes that the Emperor's ambition is for the Imperium to be the bastion of the human race in the future so he looks to perpetuate it (which with 10,000 years hindsight is pretty much game over) even knowing that by doing so he could be 1) rebelling himself 2) abandoning his father and brothers in their need, to push through with what he believes to be the Emperor's vision. That takes an unbelievable amount of dedication to the Emperor, his vision or both. We know Gulliman is renowned for his logical approach to all things but he does display emotion when the right nerve is touched (no one could really say that punching Kor Pharon's heart out was cold and calculating violence) so he he bites down on the desire to see Horus., Lorgar and laterly Angron dead and looks to salvage what he can.

 

Sanguinius, Dorn, Corax and Vulkan's loyalties were all rock solid along with Russ (some very interesting perspective on his view of his role and how different he could have been without maintaining Fenris as his hearth) Ferrus is dead, Gulliman is mention above leaving the Lion.

 

Whilst we can see he was indeed solid in his loyalty - "Loyalty is it's own reward" - I think it more to do with how his own standing would be affected by that loyalty. He tell's Perturabo that when Horus is dealt with a new Warmaster will be needed and he intends to see that it's himself. To me that sounds like a very calculating mind at work - The Imperium will be the dominant entity in the galaxy and as the crown prince of that entity he'd be pretty much at where he'd want to be.

Yes all true, and that is sort of what i was talking about. Guillimans loyalty is to the imeprium above all, as evident because he didnt go straight to terra. 

[Calas Typhon]

On the account of Ferrus Manus, he (as well as Dorn and Kurze) knew exactly why he was made and his role in the grander picture. He was a breaker of forces and simply a tool to be used. It is a real shame Ferrus is not really remembered as much as some of the other primarchs and on the whole has little decent writing accounted to him, with some exception ofc to Angel Exterminatus: Theogonies 2, The first parts of Feat of Iron and in Fulgrim.

 

He is by far one of the Primarchs expected to, excuse the pun, not loose his head when it comes to Betrayal or Loyalty.

[Ishagu]

Ferrus was always one of my personal favourite. He was a rock of reason and stability.

[Emperors Teeth]

I've just been re-reading (listening to) Fulgrim and it really does a good job of explaining the motives and character of Ferrus & The Phoenician.

 

The Phoenician - Dedicated to perfection, but insecure about his ability to actually make it a reality whilst at the same time not really understanding what perfection means. I don't think, without the Laer Blade, that he would have fallen. At least not half as easily. That daemon really messed the guy up from the inside. His insecurity and trust in the Emperor was easily played upon by both the Daemon and Horus, tipping him over a precipice he couldn't return from.

 

Ferrus - Also dedicated to perfection in a sense, but with a more full grasp of how, why and what he's trying to achieve. He was never under any illusion as to his purpose and did not aspire to be more than the best at what he was made for. He could not be turned for moral reasons as Fulgrim hoped as it would be asking him to turn against his reason for existing. Perhaps he could have been worked on in a similar way to Fulgrim with more subtle means, but alas we shall never know.

[Calas Typhon]

I've just been re-reading (listening to) Fulgrim and it really does a good job of explaining the motives and character of Ferrus & The Phoenician.

 

The Phoenician - Dedicated to perfection, but insecure about his ability to actually make it a reality whilst at the same time not really understanding what perfection means. I don't think, without the Laer Blade, that he would have fallen. At least not half as easily. That daemon really messed the guy up from the inside. His insecurity and trust in the Emperor was easily played upon by both the Daemon and Horus, tipping him over a precipice he couldn't return from.

 

Ferrus - Also dedicated to perfection in a sense, but with a more full grasp of how, why and what he's trying to achieve. He was never under any illusion as to his purpose and did not aspire to be more than the best at what he was made for. He could not be turned for moral reasons as Fulgrim hoped as it would be asking him to turn against his reason for existing. Perhaps he could have been worked on in a similar way to Fulgrim with more subtle means, but alas we shall never know.

 

+1 on this

 

I would say though that Ferrus could simply not be turned even if there was time to work on him,The one thing that the Primarchs might (and did) use to try and sway him was the mention that the Mechanicum were turning on the Emperor and siding with Horus too, that did not turn out well.

 

Its safe to say that of all the Primarchs Him and Dorn were incapable of being turned. Through Primarch persuasion or warp witchery as what happened with Horus.

[LordBlades]

IMO, the fall of Lorgar is as much on the Emperor as it is on himself. The moment the Emperor set foot on Colchis he (should have) realize Lorgar was the head of a church dedicated to worshipping him. He could have made his point right there and then, but no. He lets Lorgar loose into the galaxy for about a century before going like 'Hey son, you know pretty much everything you've been doing your entire life and I've been pretty much aware of since I met you? IT'S WRONG! And btw, here, your crowning achievement has been raised to the ground too.'

 

Then when Lorgar starts digging deeper discovers than not only has he been mistreated by the Emperor, but also lied to (alongside everyone else). All the gods the Imperial Truth claimed did not exist were alive and well in the Warp. Actually, odds are the Heresy could have been completely prevented had the Emperor given his sons even the short version of what really is in the warp.

 

 

From the loyalists, I think the easiest to turn would have been Guilliman. He was more than willing to choose the empire over the Emperor, so all he needed was a strong enough nudge in the direction that the best way for the Empire to prosper is for the Emperor to go. 

[Arkangilos]

IMO, the fall of Lorgar is as much on the Emperor as it is on himself. The moment the Emperor set foot on Colchis he (should have) realize Lorgar was the head of a church dedicated to worshipping him. He could have made his point right there and then, but no. He lets Lorgar loose into the galaxy for about a century before going like 'Hey son, you know pretty much everything you've been doing your entire life and I've been pretty much aware of since I met you? IT'S WRONG! And btw, here, your crowning achievement has been raised to the ground too.'

 

Then when Lorgar starts digging deeper discovers than not only has he been mistreated by the Emperor, but also lied to (alongside everyone else). All the gods the Imperial Truth claimed did not exist were alive and well in the Warp. Actually, odds are the Heresy could have been completely prevented had the Emperor given his sons even the short version of what really is in the warp.

 

 

From the loyalists, I think the easiest to turn would have been Guilliman. He was more than willing to choose the empire over the Emperor, so all he needed was a strong enough nudge in the direction that the best way for the Empire to prosper is for the Emperor to go. 

I have a feeling the Emperor did correct him several times, and he just refused to listen. Then the Emperor went from telling him no to spanking him for it. 

 

Also, the Emperor didn't lie. The chaos "Gods" were no more than extra-dimensional xenos to him, not to be worshiped but to be destroyed. IIRC, the Emperor told at least Horus that, it was mentioned in the first HH book. 

 

It came from Lorgar's pride and inability to cope with the idea that nothing is worthy of their worship. Lorgar *had* to have someone to worship, so when the Emperor said no, he went to another in the same way that a guy that "has" to have a girlfriend will move on in a day. He had bad advice, and the Emperor's flaw was allowing that bad advice to remain so close to him.

[Rob P]

I think Lorgar is a bit complicated.

 

The Emperor rebuke led him to the chaos gods, but he want through a number of transitions.

 

In the Eye he was basically told by the representatives of the gods that they wanted him as their champion and that if humanity didn't embrace chaos they would end up like the Eldar. So to me it seems like he embraced chaos to save humanity - noble if not cowardly. Even at Isstvan V he had doubts.

 

As things started to unfold post-Isstvan things have occurred that blur what he is trying to achieve. For example, he didn't like the daemon thing possessing Fulgrim - fraternity over his gods. Then when he 'saves' Angron it is as much about fraternity as fulfilling Angron's destiny.

 

There is even an argument that Lorgar is trying to force the Emperor to acknowledge his divinity.

 

There is another argument that Lorgar is simply on a noble quest for truth. The only problem for Lorgar is that he is surrounded in his legion by a nest of self-serving vipers that would sell Lorgar for daemonhood.

[Ishagu]

The Word Bearers don't come across very well in the books in that regard. They are certainly selfish and self serving, and utterly inferior to some Legions as a cohesive military force... Yet their zealotry and dark pacts make them a terrifying foe.

 

I think ultimately Lorgar was of weak character, hence his need to seek guidance and to worship rather than take his place as a leader of a Legion, and ultimately an important figure in a vast galactic Empire.

 

I don't think Guilliman would have been swayed easily, he's far too logical and reasonable to be "convinced" by dark and unseen powers into any action, and he's not unstable or easily broken mentaly.

 

But yes, I also subscribe to the simple logic that had the Emperor explained everything, and had warned his sons about the true dangers of the warp, that the Heresy would not have happened.

I also think he could have "punished" Lorgar for his religious views AFTER he had completed the golden throne and everything was safe and stable. Alas, there is no common sense in the 30th millennium as we wouldn't have the grim dark setting if there was!

[Balthamal]

Yeah it's pretty obvious from the writing in a few novels that Lorgar was weak - and that weakness was noticed by most of his brothers. He's very much like Angron in that the Emperor denied him something that he believed he absolutely needed. Both ended up sulking over it until they were given the chance to do something about it. Don't get me wrong, I think it's an interesting character angle to have Lorgar's motivations, in a word, noble, everything he's doing he's doing for his brothers or the human race. It's just a pity he's utterly misguided

[LordBlades]

The Word Bearers don't come across very well in the books in that regard. They are certainly selfish and self serving, and utterly inferior to some Legions as a cohesive military force... Yet their zealotry and dark pacts make them a terrifying foe.

I think ultimately Lorgar was of weak character, hence his need to seek guidance and to worship rather than take his place as a leader of a Legion, and ultimately an important figure in a vast galactic Empire.

I don't think Guilliman would have been swayed easily, he's far too logical and reasonable to be "convinced" by dark and unseen powers into any action, and he's not unstable or easily broken mentaly.

But yes, I also subscribe to the simple logic that had the Emperor explained everything, and had warned his sons about the true dangers of the warp, that the Heresy would not have happened.

I also think he could have "punished" Lorgar for his religious views AFTER he had completed the golden throne and everything was safe and stable. Alas, there is no common sense in the 30th millennium as we wouldn't have the grim dark setting if there was!

As it's been pointed out to myself before the Word Bearers appear to have been extremely successful by achieving a record number of compliances in the time frame in which they were faking redemption. Can't really comment about the selfishness aspect yet. They appear as such in The Battle of the Abyss, \the Serrated sun seem a pretty close-knit and competent bunch in The first Heretic, but I haven't reached the Calth part of the book series.

While Guilliman wouldn't have been easy to convince, he's one of the loyalists that actually has a pressure point that can be acted on (as proven by the whole Imperium Secundus stuff, he kinda is the only loyalist primarch that acted, not necessarily against but certainly not for the Emperor).

IMO, there are only a few loyalists that were corruptible:

Guilliman (if forced to make a choice between humanity and the Emperor he would choose humanity)

the Lion (would he follow an Emperor that he thought was no longer loyal and honorable ? like maybe somebody slips some evidence about the fate of the Thunder Warriors to him, and then the Emperor kills Curze)

Jagathai Khan (he was pretty close to being convinced to join the other side)

Sanguinius (had the Heresy not happened, and the Blood Angels succumbed to the Red Thirst in numbers during the Great Crusade, who knows what would Sanguinius be determined to do? I don't think him following in the footsteps of Magnus and knowingly or not striking a bargain with a dark power to save his sons is that far fetched).

As for the Emperor and common sense, the story of Angron is another example of the Emperor's lack of it. What was there to lose if the Emperor, instead of teleporting Angron out, would have brought down the War Hounds to fight alongside their Primarch and win him his home world? AFAIK there's no evidence Nuceria was ever made compliant.

[Remus Ventanus.]

I don't think any of the loyalists were corruptable, that much is for certain imo.

[Demus Ragnok]

I don't think any of the loyalists were corruptable, that much is for certain imo.

All of the primarchs had flaws. Thus they were corruptible.

 

There are no heroes.