# Jaghatai Khan + Horus?



## M3N0N26 (Sep 18, 2008)

I remember reading a piece of fluff, where it said something along the lines of "Although Horus mistakenly thought that Jaghatai Khan would take his side, ultimately"

Any idea where that came from? Or any idea as to why Horus would assume such a thing?


----------



## GreatUncleanOne (Apr 25, 2011)

Dunno but I really want a HH novel to be about the Khan!


----------



## Malus Darkblade (Jan 8, 2010)

I think it's simply a matter of Horus assuming all his brothers were as deluded as he was.


----------



## daxxglax (Apr 24, 2010)

Yeah, I think it was mentioned in one of the HH Visions art books. Horus made some misjudgements of character, like assuming Ferrus Manus would go along with him.


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

Aye, it seems strange to me that Horus thought Ferrus and the Khan would join him. When you look at all the other traitor primarchs, they are all clearly the rebelious ones, malcontents or ones with a grudge of some sort against the Emperor.

Angron - Well we all know about his misgivings against the Emperor for letting not letting him die with his fellow gladiators. And of course the restrictions placed on him and his legion. Well he is clearly just a traitor waiting to happen.

Mortarion - Wasn't happy at the Emperor killing the Tryrant, despite the fact that he was clearly going to fail without his intervention. Never seems very pro-Emperor in any of his fluff.

Perturabo - Bitter, petulant, angry at Dorn, generally a dick. No suprises really he turned

Kurze - Nothing really needs to be said.

Alpharius/Omegon - Until Legion came out, it was always Alpharius being very close to Horus, certainly more so than with the Emperor. Legion shows them in a much more loyal attitude, but i'm willing to bet after the events in Legion that Alpharius might have been the one to approach Horus. Either way it still stands in the older fluff.

Magnus - Doesn't really count as Horus never tried to turn him, with Magnus only coming to Horus side by other events out of his control.

Lorgar - Well nothing needs to be said here.

Fulgrim - Yet another lack of judgement imo. Sure they were close, but i believe that without the influence of the Laeren deamon Fulgrim might not have turned. Despite this they were still said to be incredibly close.

Both the Khan, Ferrus and their respective legions however seem to be very pro-Emperor and Imperium and never looked like they could be turned imo. So yeah, three big lapses of jugement i reckon.


----------



## Chompy Bits (Jun 13, 2010)

Angel of Blood said:


> Fulgrim - Yet another lack of judgement imo. Sure they were close, but i believe that without the influence of the Laeren deamon Fulgrim might not have turned. Despite this they were still said to be incredibly close.


IIRC, the daemon says as much at the end of _Fulgrim_. If it wasn't for its influence, Fulgrim would have remained loyal and informed the Emperor about Horus's betrayal.

As for the Khan, I have no idea why Horus would think he'd join him. Maybe he thought the apparently 'wild' Khan would join with the prospect of more freedom, similar to Angron, though the differences between the circumstances of those two are massive. We simply don't know enough about the Khan and his personality in order to get a good idea of why Horus would see a potential traitor in him. So let's hope for an HH book that shines some light on this primarch and fleshes him out a bit.


----------



## Giant Fossil Penguin (Apr 11, 2009)

I think it a lot to do with the Khan's 'barbarous' upbringing and seeming wildness. I'm not sure how much time they spent together, but it might be that Horus being close to Angron a fair bit could have skewed the way he saw the 'wilder' Primarchs. 
This being the case, it would stand to reason that he would automatically have tried to appraoch Russ; that he didn't suggests that the SW's total loyalty to the Emperor was already well-known, maybe his actions _vis_ the Lost Legions being what warned Horus off, in this case.


GFP


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor (Feb 22, 2009)

Just to clarify that is mentioned in the _Collected Visions_. Essentially we don't know enough to justify Horus's mindset in thinking the Khan would join him. 

But we also have no real reason to justify the Khan's loyalty to the Emperor either. The V Legion IA article simply states: _"When the two men met, it is said that the Khan knew he had met someone who embodied the ultimate ideal he had striven for, a man who could unite all the stars in the sky."_ 

As far as we know (until the HH series tells us otherwise) Jaghatai and his Legion were isolated for the majority of the Age of Darkness and returned to Terra when they recieved the orders of Rogal Dorn via _The Rout_. Who knows what Chaos agents were attempting to gain the Khan's allegience? Or what traits of the Khan/White Scars that Horus thought he could manipulate or that he thought would draw them to his side of the rebellion. A savagery (that would often result in massacre and butchery beyond reason) and lust for battle were inherent within the V Legion, and whilst this was not uncommon for Imperial forces - it was perhaps something Horus believed he could manipulate. Perhaps Horus believed that the Khan's vision of the Emperor (as someone who could _"unite all the stars in the sky"_) would have faltered in the face of the Heresy, who knows.


----------



## mc wazzahamma (Jul 12, 2011)

It seems to be less what Horus perceives intrinsically in his brothers that bring them over to Chaos, but more how much effort Chaos puts in to turning them.

For example, take a look at the fallen primarchs:

1. Horus was set up from the moment he brought Davin to compliance and left Temblar behind to govern. Further, the Interex, the anathame, the warrior lodge, the temple of the serpent and the chaos induced dreams were all used to bring him to the side of the daemons.
2. Fulgrim was ensnared by the Laer temple and magic sword with powerful daemon living inside who insidiously wore him down over time. That and in his own less than savoury astartes like Fabius Bile.
3. Mortarion was trapped in the warp and tortured for (perhaps thousands of years) before he gave in and pledged to chaos. That and his own treacherous turncoat, Typhon.
4. Magnus was manipulated from a young age (since discovering the different disciplines of sorcery on Prospero), through to his eventual deal with Tzeentch and manipulated with visions of the future.
5. Lorgar was similarly seduced through the long-term manipulations and trickery of Erebus and Kor Phaeron and then given visions within the warp. He had been unwittingly aiding chaos for decades before he was even aware. He was even born into a chaos worshiping culture.

Then take a look at the attempts to turn loyal primarchs that failed:
1. Ferrus Manus. He was asked.
2. The Lion. He was asked.
3. The Khan. Probably an sms.

The way the HH has unfolded, it seems less that Ferrus is more loyal than Fulgrim or that the Khan was more trustworthy than Magnus and more that chaos just...didn't try very hard with these guys.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Magnus was forced into the arms of Horus. There was no manipulation, and he was the greatest threat to the Heresy before it even began - if he was able to defeat Erebus and/or SarKell on Davin and/or the Emperor listened to his warning, without sending out the Space Wolves, then there would have been no Heresy.

Following the Russ invasion, Magnus had to join Horus by virtue of association rather than by actual intention.

Curze became Renegade following his attack on Dorn after Dorn criticized him and his Legion's tactics on bringing continued compliance to a world, and his subsequent murder of the Phoenix Guard and the Templars that guarded him as he escaped to Nostramo (which he then commited Exterminatus upon simply because the criminals took over). it was then that his attitude towards the Imperium and the Emperor's softly softly approach rather than rule by fear (rather than towards the Emperor after all) turned him. Horus simply provided a Haven.

Fulgrim would have not killed Ferrus Manus, but he may well have turned. The Laeran Blade was the means through which he open to possession, yet the attitude of the Remembrancers and several other notables (like Fabius, Eidolon and Lucius) within the Chapter were on their way to "perfection" even before the 23-4.


----------



## mc wazzahamma (Jul 12, 2011)

Being convinced that the primordial annihilator is the "primordial creator". Being convinced to do a deal with the warp entities to stave off his son's mutations. Being given a glimpse of the future to tempt him to contact the emperor and break the palace wards.

All smells like manipulation to me. 

Magnus was forced over the line by the invasion, but he was brought to that line by manipulation. Its Tzeentch after all!

The daemon that possessed Fulgrim said it himself, that the Phoenician would have run straight to the Emperor with news of Horus' betrayal if not for his daemonic influence.

I do agree that the legion's "purity" was already in doubt before Laeran. Which might be the case with the White Scars...


----------



## MEQinc (Dec 12, 2010)

mc wazzahamma said:


> 2. The Lion. He was asked.


That's not really accurate. One, Horus never actually asked the Lion to join him, probably because he realized it was a lost cause. Two, _The First Heretic_ suggests that the Gods had attempted to manipulate the Lion from birth. The only piece we see is their choosing to place him on Caliban but presumably there would be more. Further we can see from Luthor's corruption that they might not have missed by much with the Lion.


I'd agree with the majority however in that there was likely some manipulation of the Khan going on behind the scenes. Ideally a HH novel, or three, could shed some much needed light on this topic. As a side point, the White Scars appear to use psykers more than other Legions (as suggested in _A Thousand Sons_) so maybe this was a part of that?


----------



## MontytheMighty (Jul 21, 2009)

it's about time we got an HH book about Khan, we know almost nothing about the guy

dunno bout the rest of you, but a primarch based on Genghis Khan sounds sweet


----------



## GoRy (Apr 1, 2008)

I find it strange that the Lion was able to resist to be honest. He was, in many ways. quite likely on the cusp after reading between the lines in the HH books - jealousy, early influence of chaos, etc.

Perhaps, and just spitballing, if Luther hadn't been gradually turned (Let's face it, from the second the Emperor landed), shocking the Lion back to his senses, would it have been possible he might have?


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

I doubt it. After reading both Fallen Angels and Savage Weapons, the Lion seems as staunchly loyal as any of the other loyalist Primarchs, at no point does he even begin to look like he might have turned or could be tempted.


----------



## Baron Spikey (Mar 26, 2008)

Angel of Blood said:


> I doubt it. After reading both Fallen Angels and Savage Weapons, the Lion seems as staunchly loyal as any of the other loyalist Primarchs, at no point does he even begin to look like he might have turned or could be tempted.


In fact Horus even notes that he wouldn't even attempt to sway the 'Emperor's Triumverate' as they were too staunchly loyal (the Triumverate being the Lion, Guilliman, and Sanguinius).


----------



## MontytheMighty (Jul 21, 2009)

Baron Spikey said:


> In fact Horus even notes that he wouldn't even attempt to sway the 'Emperor's Triumverate' as they were too staunchly loyal (the Triumverate being the Lion, Guilliman, and Sanguinius).


I'm surprised that "lapdog" Dorn isn't among the Triumvirate (where does Horus mention these three as the Triumvirate by the way?)


----------



## MEQinc (Dec 12, 2010)

MontytheMighty said:


> I'm surprised that "lapdog" Dorn isn't among the Triumvirate (where does Horus mention these three as the Triumvirate by the way?)


Especially seeing as Guilliman does effectively betray the Emperor, just not for Horus.


----------



## Baron Spikey (Mar 26, 2008)

MontytheMighty said:


> I'm surprised that "lapdog" Dorn isn't among the Triumvirate (where does Horus mention these three as the Triumvirate by the way?)


I believe it's in Galaxy in Flames (possibly Fulgrim or Flight of the Eisenstein).
Horus to them as being his biggest obstacle, they must either be destroyed or lead astray post-haste.

Dorn was hardly a poster boy for obedience and loyalty after the Heresy though


----------



## mc wazzahamma (Jul 12, 2011)

MEQinc said:


> That's not really accurate. One, Horus never actually asked the Lion to join him, probably because he realized it was a lost cause. Two, _The First Heretic_ suggests that the Gods had attempted to manipulate the Lion from birth. The only piece we see is their choosing to place him on Caliban but presumably there would be more. Further we can see from Luthor's corruption that they might not have missed by much with the Lion.


It's a fair point, and one I was thinking about after posting. 

As far as the evil-first-captain cliche goes, Luther works differently than the others. Whereas Typhon and Kor Phaeron fall to chaos directly involved bringing their primarchs down with them, Luther's fall was at odds with the Lion.

Rather than bring his primarch to the fold, it drive a wedge between them. I don't recall where Luther makes any real effort to tempt the primarch rather than just oppose him. 

So, all we have (so far) for trying to corrupt the Lion is Savage Weapons, where Kurze asked him to join the party. 

I'm also not a fan of the triumvirate idea (which I've never heard of before). I much prefer the idea of this:

_
No single Primarch was wholly resistant to these unspoken temptations. The character of each was sorely tested, and fully half of them failed that test._


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

Well Dorn goes without saying really. He was on Terra and i would wager be impossible to turn without raising any suspicion, even if could be tempted in the first place.


----------



## MEQinc (Dec 12, 2010)

mc wazzahamma said:


> Rather than bring his primarch to the fold, it drive a wedge between them. I don't recall where Luther makes any real effort to tempt the primarch rather than just oppose him.


I didn't mean to suggest that this was what Luthor did. Rather I meant that everything (or at least almost everything) that wound up causing Luthor to convert could've concievably happened to the Lion. They have very similar characters, it's just that the Lion turned out to be self-confident enough to deal with his brothers, sons and the Emperor. In an inner-battle like Chaos would be waging very small changes can cause pretty drastic differences.



> So, all we have (so far) for trying to corrupt the Lion is Savage Weapons, where Kurze asked him to join the party.


I don't really consider that a serious attempt to sway the Lion. It seemed to me like Kurze was just sowing doubts. Trying to make the Lion second-guess himself in their upcoming war, rather than seriously trying to convert him. 



> I'm also not a fan of the triumvirate idea (which I've never heard of before). I much prefer the idea of this:
> 
> 
> _No single Primarch was wholly resistant to these unspoken temptations. The character of each was sorely tested, and fully half of them failed that test._


These two ideas aren't necessarily contradictory. Just because Guilliman, Lion and Sang are staunchly loyal at the outbreak of the Heresy doesn't necessarily mean they hadn't or wouldn't be sorely tested. Seeing as Chaos tends to tempt you in secret and often in convoluted ways I see no reason why we'd have to be aware of all their tests. Plus, I'd argue that Guilliman does fail, or at least comes very, very close, when he decides on the Second Imperium idea.


----------



## Baron Spikey (Mar 26, 2008)

I wouldn't say that Horus didn't try to corrupt the Triumverate because they were somehow wholly resistant to the temptations of Chaos, more that all 3 were, excluding Horus himself, the most renowned generals of the entire brotherhood of Primarchs (especially the Lion and Guilliman). 
If Horus wasn't 100% secure in his ability to turn them then he would have revealed his hand to the most deadly opponents, excluding the Emperor, he would face in the rebellion.

Better to destroy those you doubt and fear than run the risk...


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor (Feb 22, 2009)

mc wazzahamma said:


> I'm also not a fan of the triumvirate idea (which I've never heard of before). I much prefer the idea of this:
> 
> _
> No single Primarch was wholly resistant to these unspoken temptations. The character of each was sorely tested, and fully half of them failed that test._


The concept of the triumvirate can co-exist with the notion that _"no single Primarch was wholly resistant to these unspoken temptations."_ Chaos tested every Primarch, but from Horus's perspective there were three (or four including Dorn) that wouldn't conceivably join him in the same capacity as the other traitor Legions did. Essentially Horus had two options with the triumvirate; attempt to lure them to his cause or set in motion events that would put them as far away from the Heresy as possible. As unlikely as it was that Sanguinius, Jonson and Guilliman would be tempted by Horus, it was thus the much more logical option to remove them from the proceedings.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

So what stopped Horus from displacing/removing Sanguinus and the Blood Angels? Without them, I think that the attack on Terra would have succeeded (although to be fair, that statement is based almost entirely upon the scene in 'Blood Reaver' during Talos' flashback with the Blood Angels fighting like men possessed - figuratively). If Horus was afraid or worried about Sanguinus' abilities as a general or resistance to corruption, why did he not misdirect his angelic brother?

Equally, was the decision to destroy Corax' Raven Guard influenced only be the fact that they were the ones who were going to Isstvaan?

Midnight


----------



## Deadeye776 (May 26, 2011)

Interesting that I believe that Gulliman's true loyalty was to the Imperium and what it stood for above the Emperor. This leads to a great question. Was loyalty to the Emperor synomous with loyalty to the Imperium. Gulliman's decision (while being a complete douchebag) was actually tactical sound. Every stable government has protocols for continuity of government to avoid complete destruction in case of a catastrophic attack.Obviously with the forces arrayed against the Imperium and Gullimans tactical acumen being legit, he layed out the situation. Though he could have made a huge difference, if he had teleported on board that barge with the Emperor he would have died quicker than Sanguinius. It's possible his legion could have suffered huge losses and or have been broken. Obviously it's also possible they held off the traitors and made the boarding decision not neccessary. 

I think in truth the Imperium during the Heresy became something else. Maybe it always was but then it was apparent. Gulliman saw that the Imperium was bigger than the Emperor,bigger than the palace. I think the Lion saw it too when he was trying to secure the outter regions of Imperial space and ran into Curze. I still think Gulliman was a douchebag,but now that I think about it I can't call him a traitor. Even Dorn when he went through simulations saw the chances of them defeating Horus and friends were slim.Gulliman might have thought comitting his forces would leave the Imperium with no backbone. Still, you reap what you so. I think him running into Fulgrim was karma.


----------



## Malus Darkblade (Jan 8, 2010)

MidnightSun said:


> So what stopped Horus from displacing/removing Sanguinus and the Blood Angels? Without them, I think that the attack on Terra would have succeeded (although to be fair, that statement is based almost entirely upon the scene in 'Blood Reaver' during Talos' flashback with the Blood Angels fighting like men possessed - figuratively). If Horus was afraid or worried about Sanguinus' abilities as a general or resistance to corruption, why did he not misdirect his angelic brother?
> 
> Midnight


http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Signus_Prime#The_Blooding_of_Signus


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

MidnightSun said:


> So what stopped Horus from displacing/removing Sanguinus and the Blood Angels? Without them, I think that the attack on Terra would have succeeded (although to be fair, that statement is based almost entirely upon the scene in 'Blood Reaver' during Talos' flashback with the Blood Angels fighting like men possessed - figuratively). If Horus was afraid or worried about Sanguinus' abilities as a general or resistance to corruption, why did he not misdirect his angelic brother?
> 
> Equally, was the decision to destroy Corax' Raven Guard influenced only be the fact that they were the ones who were going to Isstvaan?
> 
> Midnight


He did, he sent Sanguinius and his Legion to Signus, where they were supposed to be annhilated. The Blood Angels however went beserk when Sanguinius was injured and destroyed all the deamons, something Horus could not have anticipated.


EDIT: Bah, Malus got there first


----------



## mc wazzahamma (Jul 12, 2011)

MEQinc said:


> I didn't mean to suggest that this was what Luthor did. Rather I meant that everything (or at least almost everything) that wound up causing Luthor to convert could've concievably happened to the Lion.


Conceivably, yes. Conceivably, we could run a thousand potential scenarios.

I'll take this opportunity to clear something about my posts though; I'm only working with what is either explicit within the text or subtly implied rather than imagining events "off page" or musing over possibilities. That's where my line of though is coming from right now...

Don't get me wrong, I like discussing potentials and imagining invisible scenes...that's just not what I'm getting at right now. And there's a plethora of that sort of talk amongst 40k fandom anyway.




> I don't really consider that a serious attempt to sway the Lion. It seemed to me like Kurze was just sowing doubts. Trying to make the Lion second-guess himself in their upcoming war, rather than seriously trying to convert him.



Again, conceivably yes. I'd even say it's not out of character for Curze to do something along these lines, I quite like the idea.

And again again, working with the text itself, that isn't implied or hinted at in a way that I caught. When psychological manipulation is at work (say, multiple examples from Erebus) the text is usually written in such a way as to communicate that point to the reader.

I found there was a strangely bitter earnestness to Curze in that encounter, though that is my interpretation.

We could also break that "scene" down by asking if Curze's intent was simply to sow doubt; did his actions convey that ultimate goal? Was asking the Lion to come to the party the best way for him to do that? If it was, why didn't he leave immediately after "planting that seed", instead of sticking around to do his best to validate the rebellion to Lion'el? 

I'm looking at this from a character objective standpoint. A character has an objective in each "scene", and every action s/he takes is ultimately to serve that goal. To my eye, that particular goal doesn't seem to fit completely.

It still feels like his intent to sway his brother was serious. If making the Lion doubt himself was part of it, I'd say it was likely a consolation prize rather than the main goal.




> These two ideas aren't necessarily contradictory. Just because Guilliman, Lion and Sang are staunchly loyal at the outbreak of the Heresy doesn't necessarily mean they hadn't or wouldn't be sorely tested. Seeing as Chaos tends to tempt you in secret and often in convoluted ways I see no reason why we'd have to be aware of all their tests. Plus, I'd argue that Guilliman does fail, or at least comes very, very close, when he decides on the Second Imperium idea.


You're right, I was being too black and white with that contrast.

I should say that, so far, we haven't seen much of the "testing" take place for the loyal primarchs. As I said, in the two instances explicitly explored in the novels, we've had a private request made from one primarch to another and that's it. I'm hoping for more.

And the reason we'd be aware of "the test" within the text is because it makes for interesting and nuanced storytelling. If the Horus Heresy is a story of almost irresistible corruption and the triumph of loyalty, we are better served to see that in play. To see loyalty struggle, weaken and then resolve and triumph is far more interesting and powerful than loyalty that simply never wavers.

Drama is conflict after all.

I'd rather see loyal primarchs tested and pass (in some capacity) than not see it and just say it happened.

And if we want to argue that Chaos influence should be so insidious as to be invisible and unknown even to the reader, then Horus Rising, Fulgrim, Flight of the Eisenstein and The First Heretic all need major rewrites.

I''m a tad wary of equating Guilliman's Imperium Secondus with chaos influence. That could imply that any action not 100% in step with the Emperor's is chaos influenced, rather than simply different. The Interex were separate in philosophy, intent and action to the Imperium and to the Emperor but also wholly opposed to Chaos. The same can be said for many Xenos.

Imperium Secondus seemed to bear fruit in a way that was decidedly anti-chaos.

So, just to be clear, I'm not saying none of this will happen or doesn't have the potential to, only that so far, Chaos just hasn't put as much effort into tempting the loyalists as much as their brothers.


----------



## MEQinc (Dec 12, 2010)

mc wazzahamma said:


> I'll take this opportunity to clear something about my posts though; I'm only working with what is either explicit within the text or subtly implied rather than imagining events "off page" or musing over possibilities. That's where my line of though is coming from right now...


That's fair. To me the idea that Lion and Luthor had very similar minds (if different ways of relating to the world) was implied by the text but that's my interpretation so I can see why you wouldn't share it.



> When psychological manipulation is at work (say, multiple examples from Erebus) the text is usually written in such a way as to communicate that point to the reader.


Well I certainly got that impression. Also, look at what Curze says. He's talking about how the Lion will be viewed as a fence sitter, regardless of his choice of sides. That doesn't sound to me like a 'join us' so much as a 'you're screwed bro'. Something to make the Lion doubt himself (his potential future legacy) rather than make him turn.



> If it was, why didn't he leave immediately after "planting that seed", instead of sticking around to do his best to validate the rebellion to Lion'el?


Okay I could be wrong but didn't the Lion pretty much sucker-punch Curze while they were more or less still talking. As in, Curze wasn't finished with his manipulation. After all if you're aiming to sow doubt you're going to keep at it as long as the other guy lets you.



> And the reason we'd be aware of "the test" within the text is because it makes for interesting and nuanced storytelling. If the Horus Heresy is a story of almost irresistible corruption and the triumph of loyalty, we are better served to see that in play. To see loyalty struggle, weaken and then resolve and triumph is far more interesting and powerful than loyalty that simply never wavers.


Oh I agree completely. However, to date, we have not had a story (or at least a full length novel) from the perspective of a loyal Primarch (other than the Lion who I feel was tested, not sure if you agree). It is unlikely in my mind that Loken or Garro or any of the other POV characters would know about the fairly secretive testing that was going on with the loyalists.



> And if we want to argue that Chaos influence should be so insidious as to be invisible and unknown even to the reader,


Again, I'm not arguing that it should be invisible to us but rather that it should be unknown to the characters.

Also, I'd suggest that the more overt influences we see on the traitor Primarchs is the result (at least somewhat) of the fact that they already favoured Chaos, as in Chaos steps up its game once it realizes it's got a foot hold (something it never gained with the loyalists). Obviously this isn't supported by the text so feel free to not concern yourself with it.



> I''m a tad wary of equating Guilliman's Imperium Secondus with chaos influence. That could imply that any action not 100% in step with the Emperor's is chaos influenced, rather than simply different.


Well, I tend to think anything that would cause someone to fairly radically shift their world view has an external infulence. So Guilliman's decision to abandon the bulk of the Imperium, and the Emperor and his brothers, seems like it must have come from somewhere. I merely suggested the possibility that it was the result of previous Chaos influence. 



> Imperium Secondus seemed to bear fruit in a way that was decidedly anti-chaos.


Just because something is Chaos influence doesn't mean that it will work out in their favour, or that it will appear to be Chaotic. Look at the Luthor/Lion situation, the burning of Prospero, the Star Child cult and even the Coven.

Plus, Guilliman abandons the Imperium Secondus idea at some point, so we don't really know how it would've worked out for Chaos. 



> So, just to be clear, I'm not saying none of this will happen or doesn't have the potential to, only that so far, Chaos just hasn't put as much effort into tempting the loyalists as much as their brothers.


That's understandable given that we really haven't seen much of the loyalists so far. I figure the Heresy team is introducing the bad guys first and laying out their reasoning to create a more unique story. I do imagine we'll see some loyalists latter, and have no doubt we will see them tempted (after all a story about resisting temptation is more impressive if you've already seen people secom to it).


----------



## mc wazzahamma (Jul 12, 2011)

MEQinc said:


> That's fair. To me the idea that Lion and Luthor had very similar minds (if different ways of relating to the world) was implied by the text but that's my interpretation so I can see why you wouldn't share it.


They possibly do, I'm not discounting that. I'm simply saying that I've only seen "hard evidence" of one of those minds being manipulated by Chaos to any quantifiable degree.

So far, of course.



MEQinc said:


> Well I certainly got that impression. Also, look at what Curze says. He's talking about how the Lion will be viewed as a fence sitter, regardless of his choice of sides. That doesn't sound to me like a 'join us' so much as a 'you're screwed bro'. Something to make the Lion doubt himself (his potential future legacy) rather than make him turn.


Or potentially, realising he wasn't getting his way, Curze's bitter nature ramped up.

A little like in real life, when one person tries to get another to do something, they might start off polite and reasonable, but if they're denied enough, their attempts to sway the other person can become more forceful, downright spiteful, pushy and hurtful. Besides, that "you're screwed" bitterness seems to be Curze's default way of communication. He'd likely have that attitude at your birthday party even as you cut the cake.

Or it could be the way you interpret it too. I would just assume the author would write a little aside in there (on top of the dialogue) to at least hint at the possibility. Using Erebus as an example, the scene between him and Kor Phaeron and Lorgar was subtle, but gave just enough hinting beyond the dialogue that they were screwing with their primarch's mind. A small look here and there, a smile, a eagerness over certain points of discusssion...

One part that makes me think there was some sincerity to Curze's attempt is this:

_'You will not sway me with your traitor's tongue'

Curze nodded, utterly unsurprised. His vile facade cracked for a moment, revealing the warrior he'd once been- perhaps never pure, never free of torment but capable of emotion beyond this condescending bitterness. The strain lines of pain faded from his brow, and the serpent's sneer left his lips. His voice was still raw, still ruined, but now carried an edge of sorrow. 'I know. So what harm is there in speaking together, this one last time?'_



MEQinc said:


> Okay I could be wrong but didn't the Lion pretty much sucker-punch Curze while they were more or less still talking. As in, Curze wasn't finished with his manipulation. After all if you're aiming to sow doubt you're going to keep at it as long as the other guy lets you.


You're right. And Curze is sowing doubt within the Lion at that exact moment. But is sowing doubt his ultimate goal or is it a tactic to achieve his ultimate goal (the goal being to bring the Lion across)?

_If I make the Lion doubt himself and his future in the Imperium, will he be more likely to listen to me and leave it? Yes._

Characters tend to have a definable goal in each 'scene', and they use several tactics to get there. They plead, they flatter, they insult, whatever. The tactic isn't always the goal.



MEQinc said:


> Oh I agree completely. However, to date, we have not had a story (or at least a full length novel) from the perspective of a loyal Primarch (other than the Lion who I feel was tested, not sure if you agree). It is unlikely in my mind that Loken or Garro or any of the other POV characters would know about the fairly secretive testing that was going on with the loyalists.


Agreed. I'm pointing out that so far, Chaos' attempts to bring the traditional loyalists across have been underwhelming.



MEQinc said:


> Also, I'd suggest that the more overt influences we see on the traitor Primarchs is the result (at least somewhat) of the fact that they already favoured Chaos, as in Chaos steps up its game once it realizes it's got a foot hold (something it never gained with the loyalists). Obviously this isn't supported by the text so feel free to not concern yourself with it.


Interestingly though, one of the reasons Ferrus becomes so enraged and determined to kill Fulgrim is because he fears his brother saw a weakness in him, something that made him a prime candidate for Chaos. A potential for that foothold you describe. I hope that is explored in some way.



MEQinc said:


> Plus, Guilliman abandons the Imperium Secondus idea at some point, so we don't really know how it would've worked out for Chaos.


Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't the current 40k the Imperium Secondus?



MEQinc said:


> I do imagine we'll see some loyalists latter, and have no doubt we will see them tempted (after all a story about resisting temptation is more impressive if you've already seen people secom to it).


I hope so!


----------



## MEQinc (Dec 12, 2010)

> One part that makes me think there was some sincerity to Curze's attempt is this:
> 
> _'You will not sway me with your traitor's tongue'_
> 
> _Curze nodded, utterly unsurprised. His vile facade cracked for a moment, revealing the warrior he'd once been- perhaps never pure, never free of torment but capable of emotion beyond this condescending bitterness. The strain lines of pain faded from his brow, and the serpent's sneer left his lips. His voice was still raw, still ruined, but now carried an edge of sorrow. 'I know. So what harm is there in speaking together, this one last time?'_


Interestingly that makes me more confident in my interpretation (funny how two people can look at the same thing but get completely different ideas from it). Curze seems to realize that he won't turn the Lion, at least not fully. Now it's possible he's lieing, he certainly seems to have some kind of aim behind talking to the Lion, but personnally I view it as attempting to weaken his position not make him change it.



> You're right. And Curze is sowing doubt within the Lion at that exact moment. But is sowing doubt his ultimate goal or is it a tactic to achieve his ultimate goal (the goal being to bring the Lion across)?


It seems to me that Curze has already accepted that the Lion won't turn (as per your prior quote). Further, Curze never seems to move past sowing doubts. When you're trying to convince someone to switch sides you need to present that alternative. You break down the side they're on and then build up your own but Curze never seems to move past the break down stage. It's possible that this is simply how Curze's mind works and that he doesn't understand how to manipulate people but that seems unlikely to me. He is one of the Primarchs who seems to have the best understanding of human psychology, so why isn't he using it properly (if his goal is turning the Lion) in this scene?



> Interestingly though, one of the reasons Ferrus becomes so enraged and determined to kill Fulgrim is because he fears his brother saw a weakness in him, something that made him a prime candidate for Chaos. A potential for that foothold you describe. I hope that is explored in some way.


Agreed. The Iron Hands need a novel to help flesh out their ideology and history.



> Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't the current 40k the Imperium Secondus?


Not really. Guilliman's plan appears to be to found the Imperium Secondus around the Ultramar sector and effectively leave the rest of the galaxy to burn (at least initially), he pretty much states that he will not be helping his brothers against Horus. However, we know that eventually he does travel to Terra and intervene in the final moments of the Siege. This seems to me like he is changing his mind about the Imperium Secondus (the Emperor isn't dead at this point) and joining back up with the regular Imperium.


----------



## mc wazzahamma (Jul 12, 2011)

MEQinc said:


> Interestingly that makes me more confident in my interpretation (funny how two people can look at the same thing but get completely different ideas from it). Curze seems to realize that he won't turn the Lion, at least not fully. Now it's possible he's lieing, he certainly seems to have some kind of aim behind talking to the Lion, but personnally I view it as attempting to weaken his position not make him change it.


I think the difference of opinion (in this example) might stem from my background in screenwriting, where context and subtext take precedent over the literal interpretation of dialogue.

The character's words on a page could be "I love you.", but through context of the scene they might truly mean "I hate you", "I'm over you", "I want you to do something for me" and countless other variations.

The character's intentions, state of mind and relationship to the other character all colour those very simple words.

Similarly, in this case I'm not looking at the Curze's "I know" but the context and subtext of the discussion and his sincerity and sadness in the moment as he expresses those words.

I suppose it's up to us to look at it and think, do I think it fits to for him to feel sincere sadness that his attempt to sway the Lion will likely fail? Or is it more fitting that he is sincerely sad that he must manipulate him and make him doubt himself?

So far, my money is on the former. I think it lends more pathos and dimension to the scene and to the characters. It implies that Curze would find some comfort and perhaps validation in the Lion joining him. That this scene is almost about reaching out to his brother, not just screwing with his mind.

In either case, I suppose my original point still stands. Whether or not the attempt is hollow, it's still the only one we've seen by Chaos for the Dark Angel primarch so far.



MEQinc said:


> He is one of the Primarchs who seems to have the best understanding of human psychology, so why isn't he using it properly (if his goal is turning the Lion) in this scene?


Is he though? Everything written about Curze points to a horrible inability to understand human psychology. He is constantly painted as a man/monster who grew up outside of society and has little grasp of anything other than violence and terror.

His understanding of psychology boils down to "if I make you afraid, you'll do what I want".

That certainly fits here.

And as the saying goes, madness is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Curze is definitely that. He is an instrument that can only play one note.

There might be instances of his mastery of psychology that I missed though. Happy to be pointed in the right direction.



MEQinc said:


> Not really. Guilliman's plan appears to be to found the Imperium Secondus around the Ultramar


I missed the part where he said that he'd base the Imperium in Ultramar! Funny how these little details can slip by. I'll have to reread.


----------



## MEQinc (Dec 12, 2010)

mc wazzahamma said:


> I suppose it's up to us to look at it and think, do I think it fits to for him to feel sincere sadness that his attempt to sway the Lion will likely fail? Or is it more fitting that he is sincerely sad that he must manipulate him and make him doubt himself?
> 
> So far, my money is on the former. I think it lends more pathos and dimension to the scene and to the characters. It implies that Curze would find some comfort and perhaps validation in the Lion joining him.


I agree with this completely. However, just because Curze is sad that he cannot turn his brother does not (to me at least) suggest that he will attempt to turn him. He is sad because he accepts the truth of what he is saying, he knows that the Lion will not join him regardless of what he says. Curze then seeks to do what he does, which is manipulate people into self-doubt. Saying that his sadness that the Lion won't turn suggests that he will then try to turn the Lion sounds odd to me. I agree that Curze would want to turn the Lion, I just don't think that's what he's doing here as he's already accepted that it won't work.



> Is he though? Everything written about Curze points to a horrible inability to understand human psychology. He is constantly painted as a man/monster who grew up outside of society and has little grasp of anything other than violence and terror.


Curze's psychology seems to be much like a sociopaths. They don't feel emotions themselves but come to have an excellent understanding of how emotions form in others, and how they express them. Curze is a monster because he feels nothing but hate, not because he doesn't understand feelings (which is more horrible? A man who terrifies others by accident or one who purposefully evokes that response and then brutally uses it to his advantage).



> There might be instances of his mastery of psychology that I missed though. Happy to be pointed in the right direction.


His understanding of the human mind (admittedly a very dark and grim understanding) is suggested in a number of sources. _Lord of the Night_ has a couple flashback/memoirs that suggest a pretty keen understanding of how to create and manipulate fear (which is somewhat harder than many people seem to think) and I believe either the _Dark King _or _Lightning Tower_ has him discussing his philosophy and analysis of the human mind with Dorn, and suggests a pretty solid understanding. More so than the other Primarchs who often seemed confused over pretty simple things like neglect and resentment.


----------



## mc wazzahamma (Jul 12, 2011)

MEQinc said:


> Saying that his sadness that the Lion won't turn suggests that he will then try to turn the Lion sounds odd to me. I agree that Curze would want to turn the Lion, I just don't think that's what he's doing here as he's already accepted that it won't work.


Ever fought a lost cause?

Tried to stop a girl from leaving you? Or bring her back?

Tried to talk a friend out of addiction?

Ever known in your mind that something is nearly impossible but wishing in your heart it wasn't and fought for it anyway?

It seems to be one of the themes of 40k. The Emperor on Horus' ship at the battle of Terra comes to mind.


Here's another interpretation of that sorrow for us to consider: what if it were genuine sympathy for the Lion's fate? After all, every seed of doubt Curze attempts to sow _is true_. The Lion will be cast in an ambiguous light in the future. Justice and vindication are important to at least parts of Curze's mind.




MEQinc said:


> Curze's psychology seems to be much like a sociopaths. They don't feel emotions themselves but come to have an excellent understanding of how emotions form in others, and how they express them. Curze is a monster because he feels nothing but hate, not because he doesn't understand feelings (which is more horrible? A man who terrifies others by accident or one who purposefully evokes that response and then brutally uses it to his advantage).


I never got that from Curze, he seems to understand and manipulate only one emotion: fear.

He also experiences deep remorse and turmoil, something that socio/psychopaths are generally immune to.

I haven't seen him understand or manipulate emotions in the way of the best psychopaths (who can charm you into their web) or work your mind like a toy (Hannibal Lecter). The only possible example seems to be the one we're discussing and that's up for debate (and really, how else does anyone get another to change their position? By making them doubt it. It's a pretty standard approach not exactly 'masterly'). Other than that, it's all been pretty straight forward 'terror tactics'.

He doesn't really fit that traditional socio/psychopath mould, he has more in common with paranoid personality disorder. A Rosharch (from Watchmen) rather than a Hannibal Lecter.




MEQinc said:


> His understanding of the human mind (admittedly a very dark and grim understanding) is suggested in a number of sources. _Lord of the Night_ has a couple flashback/memoirs that suggest a pretty keen understanding of how to create and manipulate fear (which is somewhat harder than many people seem to think) and I believe either the _Dark King _or _Lightning Tower_ has him discussing his philosophy and analysis of the human mind with Dorn, and suggests a pretty solid understanding. More so than the other Primarchs who often seemed confused over pretty simple things like neglect and resentment.


You'll have to give me some examples, since I've read all of those and the impression of his understanding of human psychology was "people are inherently bad, you need to scare them into being good".

Curze's viewpoint is simplistic, black and white and uncompromisingly totalitarian. It's a philosophy that is shown to be hugely flawed (his own planet is a mess while Ultramar is perfectly ordered with no need for his brand of fear).

That's not a master of psychology, or even a novice. That's a master of making you wet your MkIV.

On the other hand (and bringing it back on topic somewhat) Horus is the primarch that holds the "master psychologist" title as far as the fiction tells us. It's in most IAs and exemplified by 'The Last Remembrancer". So I hope that if we see Horus try to bring the Kahn over, that the writers have the skill necessary to show him doing so as a master of psychology.


----------

