# Evolution of the Lion and the Dark Angels



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

*WARNING: SPOILER-HEAVY!*

The storyline of the First Legion and their "dark secret" goes back to the earliest days of 40k. Subsequent releases to the game, as well as novels and short stories have added to that legacy... sometimes in seemingle conflicting ways.

Initially, a story was told wherein Lion El'Jonson was betrayed by an embittered Luther. The latter succumbed to the lure of Chaos, and turned Caliban against his Primarch. The two fought a duel, but the Lion could not find it in him to kill a man that had been so close to him. Luther took advantage of his hesitation and struck him down, but the regret of his betrayal struck him insane. El'Jonson was never found, and Luther was imprisoned within the Rock. That same old story told of how the sleeping Lion El'Jonson was lying within the Rock as well, but unknown to any of the Dark Angels.

The secret of the Dark Angels, at this time, was the fact that their Legion had been forced to fight its own brothers, as well as one of their adopted homeworld's greatest heroes. The shame that they bore was that some of their traitor brethren had survived the destruction of Caliban. While these Fallen roamed the Galaxy, the Dark Angels could not rest.

Pretty straight-forward stuff, and it didn't change for several years. Then, however, came "Angels of Darkness", considered by some to still be Gav Thorpe's signature novel.

Told from the point of view of two drastically different individuals, "Angels of Darkness" introduced a neat wrinkle to an otherwise straightforward legacy of intrigue: Astelan's assertion that the Lion was the actual traitor - that he "sat on the fence" to see who would win the Horus Heresy. Debate ensued for quite some time about whether Astelan's accusations were true, and at one point even Gav Thorpe himself pointed out that the character in question had been compromised by Chaos. 

This twist in the Dark Angels story would inevitably have an impact on those novels of the Horus Heresy series that focused on the First Legion. The question, though, was whether Astelan would be vindicated or not.

"Descent of Angels" arrived, and the legacy of "Angels of Darkness" manifested mostly in the background mystery of some of the Lion's actions. That is, there was no question as to whether or not Luther had done wrong, but there were questions as to the Lion's intents when he had marched against the Knight of Lupus.

The same questions grew in "Fallen Angels", when it was more or less revealed the Lion had been deeply interested in the Knights of Lupus' library, which included treatises on the nature of Caliban and the taint it suffered from. He had even installed a former Knight of Lupus as the new Lord Cypher. He had kept secrets, after all. On the other hand, though, his refusal to side with Horus and his traitors was obvious.

"Savage Weapons" was then released, and what we saw in that story was a Lion who reaffirmed his refusal to join not only the Heretics, but Loyalists who might have their own ambitions as well. It was a significant affirmation AND reversal to "Angels of Darkness", though. On the one hand, it rejected Astelan's assertions and thus rendered moot much of the debate that had been generated by them. On the other, it confirmed that the Dark Angels never did manage to lend a hand to Terra... but gave a valid reason for them not being able to do so (Warp storms, whose genesis was shown in "Know No Fear").

Which brings us to "The Lion", a novella written by Gav Thorpe, set in the midst of the Heresy. Only the first third has been released, but it seems as if we've come full circle in a sense. The grim but noble Lion shown in "Savage Weapons" was now obviously and openly distrustful, even toward other Loyalists. I think it's fair to assert that we might be seeing a direction wherein the Lion - hampered or not by the Warp storms - would end up proving Astelan right: sitting by the sidelines, unwilling to trust Dorn, Sanguinius, the Khan, or Russ.

I hope I'm proven wrong on that count.

I feel, in all honesty, that the overall depiction of the Dark Angels in the Horus Hersy could have been done better. See below.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

*Descent of Angels*

*WARNING: SPOILER HEAVY!*

I felt bad for Mitch Scanlon, who seemed to get a lot of heat from the Black Library readership over "Descent of Angels". I can see why... the first Horus Heresy novel on a pretty popular Legion was bound to come with some heavy expectations. Furthermore, this was the first novel in the series to look at a Loyalist legion, period. And even more importantly, it came hot on the trail of a novel that had covered a climactic moment in the Heresy ("Fulgrim", of course). But ultimately, I didn't think it was *bad* literature, or even a *bad* 30k story.

I just thought it kind of missed the mark.

Caliban, in "Descent of Angels", struck me as a kind of quick, "cut and paste" job wherein a society defined by medieval monastic knightly orders are transposed in a forest realm that is made dangerous by predatory beasts. And while Mr. Scanlon showed some creativity with the Beasts of Caliban themselves, the rest of the setting just struck me as rather lackluster. I think that's honestly part and parcel of something a couple of Black Library authors have mentioned in their interviews: the idea that that drawing inspiration from certain themes can enrich a story, but that a more-or-less direct translation of a familiar concept into 40k might appear trite.

In this case, what did Caliban have to recommend from it. A certain author, I can't remember who, pointed out in a blog entry or forum post the dangers of Caliban's ecology... and in doing so, within the space of a just a couple of paragraphs, gave more life to Caliban than the entire novel of "Descent of Angels" managed. In the novel, it just doesn't come across as a Death World. Nothing about it struck me as a place where the environment is endemic to human existence. It's just a planet covered by "shadowy woodlands", that happen to be plagued by horrible beasts. The villages are non-descript villages. The castles are non-descript castles.

Same thing for the Order itself. Aside from from a hint of ritual or two, and the tie-in of Cypher, I felt that Mr. Scanlon was basically leaving it up to me to "fill in the blanks" and imagine however/whatever I might like the Order to be. This translated to the Legion as well. There was virtually nothing special to point out regarding the Dark Angels. A cursory comment regarding their internal organization consisting of Chapters was basically it (this merited mention since in the first five novels we got to see how four other Legions structured themselves). This one kind of hurt, since what made the first five novels of the Heresy special was the light it shed on the inner workings and distinctiviness of the Legions: the Mournival, for instance, the Lodges, Mortarion's silent bodyguard, etc.

The story itself felt more like an afterthought to the point behind the story itself. Given that this wasn't to advance the tale of the Heresy in any way, this boiled down to a rather lackluster (unfortunately) attempt to show the origins of the Dark Angels, how the Lion was discovered, and why Luther was exiled. A lot of folks have mentioned that "Descent of Angels" is better when read directly before "Fallen Angels", but I'll go a step further (or backward?): I think one can reasonably argue that most of "Descent of Angels" could have been summarized into a few pages of introductory, descriptive narrative. Luther's exile at the end of the novel is virtually the only event of note.

I really hate to sound this harsh toward a person who, at the end of the day, sought only to please fans of the milieu and the Dark Angels, but ultimately I don't feel like "Descent of Angels" really delivered. We got to see the reason why Luther was exiled (valid), and we got a taste or two of the Lion's secretive nature. That's it...


----------



## ckcrawford (Feb 4, 2009)

I think it has a lot to do with how each author wanted the Dark Angels depicted. It is really noticeable in my opinion the "180" (thanks my dear Spikey Baron) taken with the Dark Angels. 

I like the idea that the Dark Angels would be the "fence sitters." But that was back in the day before all this fluff came into play that showed them to be loyalists. 

I don't like the idea they were "fence sitters" just because they decided not to trust anyone. That sounds stupid. Dorn and the Imperial Fists were obvious loyalists, Praetorians of Terra. 

Unless they elaborate on why the Lion thought trusting Perturabo and then being so distraught (enough to just abandon the rest of the Imperium) is justifiable, then it kind of sounds stupid. 

Perturabo just off what we know in the Heresy, sounds like one of the most untrustable primarchs. He is the most distant and his character appears to be cold and grim. We as the fans aren't really surprised about his fall. So how is the Lion? Unless he viewed Perturabo as the Emperor's biggest bitch (Being forced to use his legion as a garrison legion.)


----------



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

_@Phoebus_: I agree with you wholeheartedly.



ckcrawford said:


> I like the idea that the Dark Angels would be the "fence sitters." But that was back in the day before all this fluff came into play that showed them to be loyalists.
> 
> I don't like the idea they were "fence sitters" just because they decided not to trust anyone. That sounds stupid. Dorn and the Imperial Fists were obvious loyalists, Praetorians of Terra.




Trust had always been a scarce commodity for the Lion (even before Horus’s betrayal). It was not a natural state for the Primarch of the First Legion (source: _The Lion_ novella).


The Lion orders Luther and Zahariel to return to Caliban, after it is revealed that Luther contemplated allowing a rebel delegation to assassinate him.


News of Horus's treachery reaches the Lion, who reacts by leading a small raid on Diamat to deprive Horus of the valuable siege engines.


After securing the siege engines, the Lion subsequently gifts the valuable devices to Perturabo and the Iron Warriors in return for their support in Jonson's bid to become the new Warmaster after Horus's seemingly inevitable demise.


Perturabo, Lorgar, Alpharius and Night Haunter join Horus's rebellion on Isstvan V. The Warmaster, through Perturabo also acquires possession of the Diamat siege engines. The Lion, directly betrayed by Perturabo pledges that _"he would never again accept the simple word of his brothers."_


During the Thramas Crusade against the Night Lords in the galactic east, Curze questions the Lion's trust of his own Legion: _"No risk of the fair Angels falling? When did you last walk upon the soil of Caliban, oh proud one?"_


The Lion seems to become even more inherently mistrustful (as personified by his seemingly unjustified suspicion of Stenius - TBC). The words of Curze play heavy on his mind - perhaps more so due to the nature of his last confrontation with Luther.


Word reaches the Lion from Roboute Guilliman who invites the I Legion to rendezvous with the XIII. The Lion reacts suspiciously: _"It seems Horus is not the only soul to believe he is heir to the empire."_ Suspicions that (from the Lion's perspective) would only be validated if Guilliman's plan of _"Imperium Secundus"_ was shared with him. 


Post-Heresy: With Dorn leading crusades of vengeance against the remaining traitors, Guilliman becomes the central figure of the Imperium. His visions of the _"Imperium Secundus"_ are coming to fruition, with his most prominent legacy being the Codex Astartes. The Lion's inherent mistrust would seem justified. It seems to be the case that he would have to some degree opposed Guilliman's rulership (given he had ambitions of his own as per _Fallen Angels_). 


The Lion's belief that Guilliman envisioned himself as _"heir to the empire"_ would have been further validated when a second civil war almost breaks out when the Imperial Fists are fired upon by the Imperial Army.


The Lion's return to Caliban confirms his worst fears (which would have played on his mind ever since Curze sowed them during the Thramas Crusade) - Luther and a significant portion of his Legion had betrayed him. 

The above are the main events which concerned or effected the Lion's inherent mistrust. Look, the Lion was undoubtedly loyal to the Emperor, I don't think anyone can question that. But at every turn his brothers had given him reason to distrust them, from Perturabo with the guns of Diamat, to Guilliman with his *seemingly* selfish desires for rulership and finally (and perhaps most bitter of all) Luther and the Fallen Angels of Caliban. Was he a _'fence-sitter'_? Well it depends from whose perspective you ask the question. Astelan and some of the Fallen may genuinely believe that Jonson waited to see who triumphed, after all Jonson was no way near Terra to defend the Emperor from Horus's onslaught. From Guilliman's (and the post-Heresy High Council's) perspective Jonson may have seemed cold and mistrustful during the Heresy, especially if Guilliman enlightened Jonson with his thoughts on the _"Imperium Secundus."_ Jonson could well have been caught between his own ambitions (as seen in _Fallen Angels_), his personal loyalty to the Emperor, and Guilliman's vision of the Imperium Secundus - thus seeming like a _"fence-sitter"_ to the lord of the XIII and other prominent officials. Given the desperate nature of the immediate post-Heresy Imperium, and with a second civil war almost erupting when Rogal Dorn refused to adhere to the Codex Astartes, Jonson's failure to truly support Guilliman's leadership and general mistrust may have made him seem like a _'fence-sitter'_ - or could have been intentionally portrayed as such in an attempt to garner support for Guilliman's reforms. The wider Imperium in general may also have had (unjustifiable) reason to believe he was a _'fence-sitter'_ given that he was no way near Terra when the Emperor fell - especially given the feeling of some of the other Legions that the Emperor's death was their fault. There seems to have been no such sentiment from the First Legion which could have fuelled rumour and speculation as to their Heresy-era whereabouts.

As for Astelan's claims in _Angels of Darkness_ though, they not only seem to be baseless and without proof - but also completely false.



ckcrawford said:


> I don't like the idea they were "fence sitters" just because they decided not to trust anyone. That sounds stupid. Dorn and the Imperial Fists were obvious loyalists, Praetorians of Terra.


It's not necessarily about loyalty to the Emperor. But rather apropos to the power struggles of the post-Heresy Imperium - it's also the case that the perception of the First Legion as _'fence-sitters'_ came about post-Heresy... both of which could be intrinsically linked.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

*Fallen Angels*

*WARNING: SPOILER-HEAVY!*

For "Fallen Angels", I don't have much to say.

I give credit to Mike Lee for being the first author in the Heresy series to actually depict the brilliance of a Primarch on the battlefield, as opposed to just talking about it. I don't think anyone here considers "Galaxy in Flames" or "Fulgrim" to have been bad novels by any means, but I also don't think anyone walked away from those books thinking "Man, [insert Primarch here] really *is* an amazing commander!" Lee didn't just make the Lion look good in a battle... he showed how genius of that level can affect a war, and he did so without really skewing the fluff. Conversely, the use of the secret traitor Perturabo to nullify the Lion's strategic genius not showed how such superhuman warlords could cancel out each other... without relying on irritating displays of hubris, poor thinking, etc.

On the other hand, Mike Lee introduced a concept that had left me with a headache since I first picked up "Fallen Angels": his distrust, and inability to "read" people. Let me be up front about this... I rejected that interpretation of his character from Day One, if only because it just didn't make sense. No, not the distrust part. Child-of-the-Emperor ably stated why even a Primarch might not feel secure in trusting others. I'm talking about that degree of paranoia that leaves one unable to determine on their own someone's veracity and dependability... even when said individual enjoys the benefit of superhuman genius. Want to know what else this theme doesn't reconcile with? The fact that no other Primarch suffers from such petty malaises. Yes, I know that Primarchs aren't cookie-cutter creations. But you know what? You don't see Conrad Kurze running around, curious as to whether his underlings are lying to him or not. His deep-seated issues (schizophrenia, sociopathic tendencies, sadism, masochism, possible multiple personalities, the list could probably go on and on) _make sense_ given his predicament. The Lion's _do not._ If a superhuman super-genius doesn't trust someone, they don't rely on someone LESS qualified than themselves to assuage their concerns. They might piss off their subordinates (assuming they ever find out, that is) by employing a wide array of tools, schemes, etc., to determine their trustworthiness... or, depending on the degree of their paranoia, might decide to just kill them outright... but they're not going to supplement this issue of distrust with misplaced trust in their mental and biological inferiors to solve their problems!

Most importantly, though, "Fallen Angels" affirmed the Lion's loyalty to the Imperium. For a lot of fans, this was a crushing blow - Astelan's assertions, and the idea of the Dark Angels being disloyal was a delicious twist (even if it might be difficult to reconcile with the Codex's long-standing statements to the contrary). Conversely, the Lion was shown as possessing not-quite-pure motives as a Primarch. He was demonstrated to possess ambition, expressed to Perturabo as his desire to succeed Horus as Warmaster. That having been said, it was shown to be ambition tempered by pragmatism - not hubris, but a realization that in such a close fraternity of superhuman peers the order of discovery itself was a deciding quality.

Unfortunately, Caliban's storyline only became a bigger and bigger headache. How does the same super-genius who figures out in no time at all how to cancel out Horus' ability to win a siege on Terra (thereby denying him the endgame before he even gets there) conveniently decide to ignore the supernatural problem that he knew fundamentally endangered his adopted homeworld? Why would he so foolishly continue to rely on a known powder-keg for the logistics and reinforcements of his Legion? How could someone so brilliant effectively adopt a policy of willful ignorance for anything happening back home? This storyline suffered (in my eyes, at least) because key parts of it were driven by a "we have to get there, somehow" mentality. Justifying the Lion's inexplicable (again, in my eyes) stance was secondary to simply coming up with a set of conditions that would lead Luther to Chaos and, eventually, rebel against his former brother-in-arms. That's... _weak,_ though.

Now we're kind of left with the failing hope that Gav (or any number of other BL authors) will eventually bring us to a (literary) climax wherein we find out just what the Lion's thought process was about Caliban. I fear it's going to entail something supremely bland like the Lion having instructed the Terran engineers/sorcerers to covertly go about with their rituals to try to suppress the daemonic taint... without ever notifying any planetary authority. This of course kind of goes against the fundamental premise of the Emperor being against sorcery. And it of course makes one wonder why the Lion would subsequently be so flabbergasted of the daemon being summoned on Sarosh.

As for the Legion itself? Again, really nothing to speak of, much like in "Descent of Angels".


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

*Savage Weapons*

*WARNING: SPOILER-HEAVY!*

I honestly think that the reason why so many people liked "Savage Weapons" (aside from the almost overall quality of the story - nigh-unanimously recognized on this forum) is two-fold:

1. It gave a feeling of uniqueness to the Dark Angels. Suddenly, they, too, had that "special" sense: their own titles (Paladin), their own structures (Orders), their own look (robes, pelts), etc.

2. It sought to give some confirmations. Absent a point or meaningful plot, intrigue and secrecy eventually becomes annoying. The Lion incontrovertibly cited his allegiance to the Imperium, stated his reasons for being absent from the Imperium, and then listened to Curze as his "venomous brother" voiced the distrust Humanity might one day cast over the Primarch of the First Legion.

I honestly felt that "Savage Weapons" might give us (that is, fans of the Dark Angels) a fresh start. Future depictions of the Lion, his Legion, and their adopted homeworld would enjoy nuance, greater detail, and a firm direction.

Several months later, with the introduction of "The Lion", I don't know if this is going to be the case any more.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

*The Lion (the story by Gav Thorpe; not the Primarch)*

*WARNING: SPOILER-HEAVY!*

(Please note that, my words below aside, I am truly looking forward to parts 2 and 3 of this novella.)

"The Lion" started off much like a continuation of "Savage Weapons", which was great (for me) since I really, really, _really_ wanted the Dark Angels to keep going with a firm, fitting direction to their storyline. The Lion still looked the Lion from "Age of Darkness", still talked like he did in that short story, etc.

From there, I only started feeling more and more worried.

The unwanted ghost of the Lion's inability to figure out if people were lying to him or not (thanks, Mike Lee) came back. Once more, the Lion decided that both his superhuman genius and the technology available to him (which, presumably, includes surveillance equipment) were more ably replaced by "second opinions" offered by people far less qualified than he to analyze a third party's thought process and likelihood to betray.

And the Lion's distrust, once a plausible and interesting part of his person (can you imagine what issues you're going to have if your adopted father/older brother/comrade figure almost goes through with your assassination) has now devolved into something outlandishly implausible. The same Lion who by now has to know about Isstvan V and just who the victims were there, decides that it's not just Guilliman he's going to distrust... it's _everyone_... even those poor Iron Hands who are fighting a *known* ally of Horus and who proved their loyalty to the Throne with the loss of their Primarch and Veterans.

Who wants to place a wager as to whether this new depth of paranoia ends up supplanting the Lion's legitimate reason for being absent from Terra (Warp storms) with an irrational refusal to commit his forces... thus taking us full circle back to "Angels of Darkness"?

Fun, fun.

Again, I'm looking forward to parts 2 and 3 of this novella. I do hope Gav Thorpe pulls it off. As of right now, though, I think "Savage Weapons" will have been a shining example of what might have been in an otherwise lackluster run through the Horus Heresy series.


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

Great stuff as always Phobeus, and as usual I completely agree with you. I too found the first two Dark Angel novels to be lack lustre(Descent so much more) and then found Savage Weapons to be a brilliant step up for the I Legion, but then _The Lion_ has already started dipping them back downhill again IMO. Along with all the other points you made, the one i just can't forgive or see a justifiable reason for doing so is of course: 


The death of Nemiel. It just made so little sense and was so out of character for Jonson. It was a absurdly over the top reaction, coupled with that look of satisfaction after he did it?! What the hell is that about, I know they've been portraying him as distant, but along with Corswain, it seemed he had a genuine bond of sorts with Nemiel, and then he just goes and slays him like that and for just a moment, feels good about it? That and it's completely taken away the potential Nemiel had for the plot later on down the line, Caliban of course. I know damn well that i'm not the only one who was looking forward to the inevitable(well, it certainly seemed damn inevitable until now) confronatation between Nemiel and Zahariel, it's probably one of the few good things that came from the first two novels. It was just one of the those plot points that seemed destined to be made. Then somehow Nemiel is brought into the story again, with my intial thoughts being quite positive that he was back. But then once again, a whole of about 5 lines later and he's dead along with any hope of a showdown back at Caliban. I'll wait on part 2 and 3, but personally it's the worst decision thats been made in the series so far.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

Angel,

Yeah, regarding the spoiler, that was something that just struck me as forced and as inexplicable as the Lion's dependance on others to solve his trust issues. One can only really accept it in a very elementary "Soldiers who disobey orders in the midst of war could be subject to execution" mentality... and then only if you choose to ignore the context of the Lion's and Nemiel's pre-existing relationship.

On a side note, though, I never really expected Nemiel and Zahariel to have a confrontation. Even though the former was with the Lion and the latter on Caliban (and idolizing Luther to an extent), I thought "Fallen Angels" showed that the Librarian was in no way leaning toward Luther's path.

If I were to guess, I'd that Zahariel will fulfill one of two roles:
1. "Good guy" Fallen (the ones stated not to have fallen to Chaos, but rather wandered as masterless men")
2. Aids the Lion and the Legion in the battle for Caliban and is ensconced as part of the early Inner Circle (I know, a long-shot).


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

To me, the Lion has often embodied the paranoia/doubt that all people have the psychic potential to betray.
This is probably drawn directly from the source material, which talks about resisting dark temptation, and the latent 'treachery' within all men.

"Because of thee, no thought, no thing,
Abides for me undesecrate:
Dark Angel, ever on the wing,
Who never reachest me too late!"

While there is no extended narrative, it certainly sets the tone and inspiration for the dark and brooding nature of the Chapter.


----------

