PDA

View Full Version : Which of the primarchs would switch sides?



Silversage
20-11-2013, 07:36
The question that popped to my mind was that given the chance, would any of the Primarchs change their allegiance right now (999.M41) if given the possibility?

I know this is a purely speculative question as there are no loyalist Primarchs currently around and the Imperium would never forgive any of the traitorous ones, but I was intrigued by the possibility nonetheless. Imagine that all of the living (as in not confirmed dead) loyalist Primarchs came back, all the traitor Primarchs came out of the Eye of Terror and a war started again in an epic scale between the Imperium and Chaos. If they were put into another one of those "choose a side" kind of situations they were in at the beginning of the Horus Heresy, which sides would they choose? Just pretend that there would be a way for the Daemon Primarchs to revert back to being just Primarchs so they could exist in the material universe if they wanted to and the Emperor would go "OK you're forgiven" if they decided to try and redeem themselves.

MR.Tea
20-11-2013, 07:42
None...Mabye Magnus

Fizzy
20-11-2013, 08:52
I have a hard time thinking anyone would do it.

But some dont prefer chaos even though they count as Chaos Space Marines.

Nicho
20-11-2013, 09:49
Alpharious? If he could stomach all the emperor worshipped as a god stuff.

SonofMagnus
20-11-2013, 10:25
The only primarch out of the traitor 9 that would "switch sides" would be (if possible) Magnus the Red, (and maybe Alpharius to depending) hes even quoted during the heresy and just before the heresy as one of THE most "loyal" primarchs.

In Betrayer even Lorgar was like "Magnus...you really should join us, after all... YOUR A ******* DAEMON!!" and he STILL didn't wanna join the traitors out of loyalty to daddy after receiving a rather brutal spanking.

Loken and Tarrik had a conversation regarding the most "loyal" primarchs, Dorn, Magnus, and Sanguinis are all quoted as some of the most loyal.

Funny enough if he was able to reconcile with the emperor his legion would have been one of the most dangerous to horus, best way to fight daemons is with warp energy.

Karhedron
20-11-2013, 10:32
Yup, Magnus and Alpharius are the only ones I see as remotely plausible. All the others embraced Chaos willingly. Even Magnus would be a tricky one as I cannot see him being willing to give up sorcery and trying to master the warp.

=Angel=
20-11-2013, 12:03
Magnus. But wasn't perturabo just caught on the wrong side? I think Horus had him convinced the emperor would never forgive him...

Fizzy
20-11-2013, 12:15
Perturabo never liked the whole chaos thing no. But he had some kind of dislike against the ways of the emperor.

Plague Lord
20-11-2013, 12:20
Lion El johnson maybe? Wasn't he waiting around looking to see who would win the heresy war? The imperium seems a bit weakish now and if the only way of survival for mankind would be to run away into the warp (from say for instance nids or orks or whatever) then I think he could join chaos...

Noserenda
20-11-2013, 12:42
I think theres still a remote possibility Mortarion may have a change of heart, after the events of Scars, and then end up trapped by nurgle anyway (Its waaaay too late). Magnus chose his path long ago, and hes well aware of that.

harlokin
20-11-2013, 12:48
Lion El johnson maybe? Wasn't he waiting around looking to see who would win the heresy war?

Nope. That fluff has long since been superseded. ;)

totgeboren
20-11-2013, 12:51
Considering the state of the Imperium (and his own state), Ferrus could possibly have switched side, if he had a do-over. The Imperium is ruled by incompetent weaklings and he is dead. Had he known that outcome in advance he might have sided with Horus instead.

SomeRandomEvilGuy
20-11-2013, 14:42
Considering the state of the Imperium (and his own state), Ferrus could possibly have switched side, if he had a do-over. The Imperium is ruled by incompetent weaklings and he is dead. Had he known that outcome in advance he might have sided with Horus instead.
I think calling the High Lords of Terra incompetent is a bit harsh. They may be doing quite a few things wrong but that's not entirely their fault and thus far they have more or less protected the Imperium. Not to mention the forces of Chaos are currently in a bit of a bad position; I highly doubt Ferrus would appreciate mutations either. I'm not sure how Ferrus' own death would effect things since choosing turning because he might die would be a show of considerable weakness. I figure he'd stay loyal regardless.

I don't think any of the Loyalists would turn to Chaos. Possibly they'd dislike the Imperium but I'd imagine they'd stick with it until the situation was more secure. As for the Traitors, I'm going to have to echo the others and say maybe Alpharius, Peturabo and Magnus. However, being a Daemon Prince like Magnus (I think) and Perturabo are skews perception. Look at Angron. He's serving a far worse master (who also rarely actually goes out to fight) than he ever did under the Emperor and yet shows no inclination of changing course.

Fizzy
20-11-2013, 14:51
. Look at Angron. He's serving a far worse master (who also rarely actually goes out to fight) than he ever did under the Emperor and yet shows no inclination of changing course.

Then again look at what the Emperors did to him. He did not help him or show him any fatherly pride against Angron for fighting with his sisters and brothers to death.

He forced him to leave them to die instead of helping them.

El_Machinae
20-11-2013, 15:30
I don't think Russ would be loyal to the Imperium. He'd be happier to just carve out a fife. Magnus would be on the Imperium's side, but would just get himself trapped again.

Scammel
20-11-2013, 17:08
It would to be interesting to know whether or not Magnus knew of the existence of the Blood Ravens, or whether that was a truth kept from him. The main factor that drove Magnus to madness and despair was the destruction of the Sons - learning that a healthy number are alive, well and thriving could upset the tulip cart.

m1acca1551
21-11-2013, 00:09
Kurze?? If he wasn't dead, he's just the weapon the imperium needs to police the interior and borders of the empire. It would be a funny type of vindication that the imperium he fought for turned into the horror and darkness his legion was know for stopping.

Fulgrim maybe, he kinda got a pretty raw deal at the end of it, the IW primarch would purely based on the fact that Dorn is dead and doesn't have to look at him.

I really think all of them would, except Lorgar because he is a child, they all turned away from the emperor based on lies fed by the word bearers and over insults real or imagined. The end result for them or most of them wasn't really that good, for the most part they are all slaves to a god or gods, dead or now simply irrelevant when compared to Abbadon.

nedius
21-11-2013, 06:59
Depending on how you interpret what happened to Fulgrim, he might.

If the being that 'ascended' was true Fulgrim, then no. But if the being was a deamon who used the power to transform Fulgrim's body into a deamonic one for itself, then Fulgrim might be able 'possess' the deamon in the same way it did to him, assuming his spirit could escape from the painting/whatever realm it was trapped in. He could never be accepted by the Imperium, but he could fight on their behalf.

Fizzy
21-11-2013, 07:45
I really think all of them would,

Angron never would. He hated the whole concept. Even if the emperor would have helped him he would take any chance to fight and do as he pleases.

MvS
21-11-2013, 09:09
I think Lorgar would have, but he would have had to have been caught quite early in his heresy. Once he became a daemon prince it was much too late.

Lorgar pre and during his fall would probably have looked at the Imperium as it is today and see it as having the right idea, honouring the Emperor as a manifest deity, but going about it in a truly awful and counter-productive way. Humanity is ground down in the 41st millennium, and that's the opposite of the theocratic model Lorgar imposed on the planets he conquered during the Great Crusade.

Camman1984
21-11-2013, 12:42
I would suggest Russ, the arrogance of the wolves coupled with their tribal customs would give chaos a way in to taint their minds. And i dont think it would take much for the imperium or at least part of it to turn on them due to their mutations and customs.

KingCro
21-11-2013, 14:29
I think Lorgar would have, but he would have had to have been caught quite early in his heresy. Once he became a daemon prince it was much too late.

Lorgar pre and during his fall would probably have looked at the Imperium as it is today and see it as having the right idea, honouring the Emperor as a manifest deity, but going about it in a truly awful and counter-productive way. Humanity is ground down in the 41st millennium, and that's the opposite of the theocratic model Lorgar imposed on the planets he conquered during the Great Crusade.

Totally agree with you. I think its pretty ironic how the man that essentially started the heresy would see the Imperium now as more like what he wanted. He wanted people to worship the emperor and now people do. Maybe that was his plan from the beginning!?!?!!! :D

Jack of Blades
21-11-2013, 16:40
Considering that it took a bunch of guys conspiring to wound and corrupt Horus to get him started on the path to Chaos to begin with and what non-verbally happened between Horus and the Emperor when Chaos abandoned Horus in his final moments, I'd say the guy would most likely switch sides. In fact there's only Angron, Lorgar and maybe Mortarion and Perturabo (the latter two because their reasons for turning AFAIK, without having read any books on them, make so little sense they have to be mentally unstable anyway) who I think would turn against the Emperor pretty much no matter what. The others IIRC either got unknowingly corrupted (Fulgrim), is a questionable case (Kurze), got tricked into only having Chaos left as a resort (Magnus) or turned to defeat the heresy and probably got corrupted by it. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BecomingTheMask) (Alpharius)

Silversage
21-11-2013, 20:14
I would suggest Russ, the arrogance of the wolves coupled with their tribal customs would give chaos a way in to taint their minds. And i dont think it would take much for the imperium or at least part of it to turn on them due to their mutations and customs.

Wouldn't that have worked against the Wolves already during the Horus Heresy? I mean, they didn't fall then, why would they do so now? Even during the Great Crusade many people in the Imperium disliked the Wolves because of their methods and role as the Emperor's executioners. Even so, Russ didn't care. He just kept doing what he was made to do. Plus, even though I'm not an especially huge Space Wolf fan, I really don't like psykers (except for the Thousand Sons, go figure), so them going batshit nuts everytime there's psychic trickery involved is ok in my book.


For the other loyalist Primarchs, I would say the same. They had a chance to switch sides and they didn't. I do not believe they would do so now either. I don't really know a few of them (Vulkan, the Khan) all that well, but as Vulkan got ample reason to loathe Chaos during Istvaan V and the Khan stood with the Emperor at the siege of Terra, I just simply don't see much incentive for any of them to do anything other than bash some Chaos faces in. If Ferrus Manus was still alive, maybe him, but even he is doubtful, remembering the intensity of the hatred he felt when Fulgrim tried to turn him.


Their Chaos counterparts however... Again, I don't know that much about a few of them (Perturabo, Mortarion) so I can't comment on whether or not they would turn back, but there are at least a couple that would definitely take the chance under consideration. Alpharius/Omegon is the first one that comes to mind as, well, he might actually still be loyal even though nobody else knows it. He was just persuaded by the Cabal that Horus MUST win in order for the Imperium to survive so basically he's been doing all the stuff because he simply believes it is the right thing to do. Magnus is definitely another, as he became a Chaos turncoat only because he was forced to do so. Given the chance to return to his father's side, he just might take it, even if he does hate the Wolves' guts.


Angron, not a chance in hell. He's way too into killing stuff that anything else is just an annoyance at best. Lorgar is another that is highly doubtful, as I still personally see him as a weakling compared to the other Primarchs. He voluntarily sought out the Dark Gods and was their *******' advocate for his brothers. Damn Kurze for blocking Corax from killing him. The Night Haunter is one of the most tragic tales of the Warhammer 40K universe (in my opinion) and I could talk on and on about whether he would turn back or not, but that is rather pointless as he is the only traitor Primarch that actually is dead.


Fulgrim is an intriguing possibility as has been mentioned above. Personally I believe a daemon is currently in possession of his body and he is still trapped in that painting. If he could regain his body (which he won't as the daemon was powerful enough to push him out even before his body was transformed and living in the Warp), there's a real chance he would seek redemption for what happened. I really think he really does regret his part in the Horus Heresy and especially killing his brother Ferrus. That's another tragic tale to add to the list.

aim
21-11-2013, 20:47
Nope. That fluff has long since been superseded. ;)

Unfortunately, the duality and mystery of who was loyal and who was traitor between the 'loyal' and 'fallen' angels was the most interesting thing about the Dark Angels by a good long way.

harlokin
22-11-2013, 14:14
Unfortunately, the duality and mystery of who was loyal and who was traitor between the 'loyal' and 'fallen' angels was the most interesting thing about the Dark Angels by a good long way.

I respect the point of view, although I disagree. It may be in large part because I feel that the more recent depictions of The Lion are far better done than the earlier, frankly awful, versions.

Evilhomer
22-11-2013, 23:45
I respect the point of view, although I disagree. It may be in large part because I feel that the more recent depictions of The Lion are far better done than the earlier, frankly awful, versions.

Wasn't it only Angels of Darkness by Gav Thorpe that gave people that idea anyway? Even then, it's the books in-universe fallen character which says that about Lion El Jonson. Everything before and after then makes it clear cut - it's just that people want the fallen angels to be the good guys and the 40k Dark Angels to be the baddies.

harlokin
23-11-2013, 11:46
Wasn't it only Angels of Darkness by Gav Thorpe that gave people that idea anyway? Even then, it's the books in-universe fallen character which says that about Lion El Jonson. Everything before and after then makes it clear cut - it's just that people want the fallen angels to be the good guys and the 40k Dark Angels to be the baddies.

Yes, I believe that was the source, although even then it was from the mouth of one of The Fallen. I did enjoy the book though.

Danny76
24-11-2013, 08:55
There's then also the complete counterpart spoken by Kurze, where he says to the lion that it is how he will be perceived in the future anyway. That whole conversation to me completely clears up that he will be seen as a 'could go either way' type despite being utterly loyal

aim
24-11-2013, 13:22
Wasn't it only Angels of Darkness by Gav Thorpe that gave people that idea anyway? Even then, it's the books in-universe fallen character which says that about Lion El Jonson. Everything before and after then makes it clear cut - it's just that people want the fallen angels to be the good guys and the 40k Dark Angels to be the baddies.

I don't want the fallen to be good guys actually, that would suck just as much. I'd prefer there to be a question, its far more interesting in this case. Angels of Darkness was in fact very entertaining, and it made sense, didn't feel shoe-horned in. It wasa nice idea that I felt added to the background significantly. Especially when you think about the fact that none of the Dark Angels were about back then. It could very well have been that even if the Lion had been of questionable loyalty (or even just being pragmatic and clinical), there is a good chance that none of the current Dark Angels would know that, which would make the situation all the more tragic, loyal hunting loyal while each thinks the other is traitor.


There's then also the complete counterpart spoken by Kurze, where he says to the lion that it is how he will be perceived in the future anyway. That whole conversation to me completely clears up that he will be seen as a 'could go either way' type despite being utterly loyal

I'm aware of that, which is what I don't like, I preferred the mystery.

Instead, now we have black and white good and bad sides with any questions being answered by The Lion just being completely socially inept.

Formerly Wu
26-11-2013, 20:31
I like to think about this by breaking down the primarchs into categories.

The Corrupted
Lorgar, Horus, and Fulgrim. The Dark Powers found a chink in their personality that made them weak to suggestion and exploited it to corrupt them. By the time of the Heresy they're knee deep in Chaos, whether they know it yet or not. No turning back for these three.
The loyalist mirror image of these three (loyal without fault) would be Guilliman, Dorn, and Sanguinus: primarchs whose devotion to the Emperor was never seriously questioned.

The Broken
Angron and Curze. Deep-seated personality flaws have driven these primarchs, and by extension their legions, dangerously insane. Even without the Heresy, it was only a matter of time before they go rogue and are forced to share the fate of II and XI. Again, no turning back.
The loyalist mirror (feral but loyal) would be the Khan and Russ: legions that rode the line of barbarism but didn't let it control them.

The Faithless
Mortarion and Peturabo. These primarchs had no real investment in the Imperial project or faith in the Emperor. They were ego-driven warlords with petty resentments that made them easy prey to Horus's lies. When faced by challenges (the Destroyer Plague and the genocide of Olympia) they give in to weakness and let others decide their fate. Of any of the groups, these two would be the most likely to flip, but that would require a moment of revelation/purpose that seems to be outside their capabilities.
The loyalist mirror (the faithful) would be Ferrus and Vulkan: primarchs who accepted their role in the Crusade and maintained faith in the face of destruction/ignominy.

The Deluded
Magnus and Alpharius/Omegon. Primarchs who let their intellect and pride override their loyalty and good sense. These legions joined the Heresy not to destroy the Imperium, but in deluded attempts to save it. They thought they could control Chaos, but in the end were made its tools. It's hard to say whether they "flipped" at all, but it's certainly too late now.
The loyalist mirror (the schemers) are the Lion and Corax: primarchs who, while loyal, tried to finesse the Heresy and its aftermath, largely to their own detriment.

harlokin
26-11-2013, 20:55
Interesting take. That said, you are trying to shoehorn Loyalist Primarchs into your artificial categories.

There is nothing in the current fluff to support The Lion being a schemer "trying to finesse the Heresy".

Formerly Wu
26-11-2013, 21:16
Interesting take. That said, you are trying to shoehorn Loyalist Primarchs into your artificial categories.

There is nothing in the current fluff to support The Lion being a schemer "trying to finesse the Heresy".
Yup, that's true. It's something I came up with while writing the post, and the last category in particular needed some shoving.

I would still argue that the Lion's initial response to the Heresy was rather more political than was appropriate. Not scheming exactly, but he did seem to be jockeying for position as future Warmaster rather than ensuring victory.

harlokin
26-11-2013, 21:21
Yup, that's true. It's something I came up with while writing the post, and the last category in particular needed some shoving.

I would still argue that the Lion's initial response to the Heresy was rather more political than was appropriate. Not scheming exactly, but he did seem to be jockeying for position as future Warmaster rather than ensuring victory.

Agreed. His rather cack-handed politicking with Perturabo is indisputable. However, when the brown stuff has really hit the spinney thing, he does become the epitome of loyalty.

The Emperor
27-11-2013, 06:11
Unfortunately, the duality and mystery of who was loyal and who was traitor between the 'loyal' and 'fallen' angels was the most interesting thing about the Dark Angels by a good long way.

Except there never was any mystery. It was spelled out pretty explicitly as far back as 2nd Edition that Lion El'Jonson was a Loyalist and Luther and his Fallen were Traitors. It's just that some people don't seem to understand the difference between an Omniscient POV and Unreliable Narrator. The former is trustworthy, the latter isn't, particularly when the character in question obviously has an agenda and is trying to create strife. Seriously, why people put more value on what one Fallen said in one novel over what was written in a Codex has always been mind boggling to me.

totgeboren
27-11-2013, 18:03
Except there never was any mystery. It was spelled out pretty explicitly as far back as 2nd Edition that Lion El'Jonson was a Loyalist and Luther and his Fallen were Traitors. It's just that some people don't seem to understand the difference between an Omniscient POV and Unreliable Narrator. The former is trustworthy, the latter isn't, particularly when the character in question obviously has an agenda and is trying to create strife. Seriously, why people put more value on what one Fallen said in one novel over what was written in a Codex has always been mind boggling to me.

You know, GW have rewritten their background a few times. Just recently, they removed chaos undivided entirely, with the effect that everything that had previously been written about the Word Bearers became sort of 'wrong'.
When that "one Fallen" introduced the idea that maybe the Fallen were the loyalists, or that there at the very least was something more (something that makes a bit more sense) behind the DA dark secret mystery past, a lot of people felt that GW were improving the background.

Some feel that the idea of Chaos Undivided didn't really make sense in the first place, and that GW have improved the background by removing it. The same could have been the case with the fleshing out of the DA background. Since they didn't continue on that path, we are left with 'emo' DA instead, which some people like, and some don't.

Asuryan's Spear
02-12-2013, 02:25
i'm not sure if this was put into canon but i always liked the idea of Russ' loyalty being absolute because of freaky canine DNA. the whole wolf pack mentality, and no i don't mean 'lets hit vegas', the whole idea that the legion(the pack) are utterly loyal to the alpha who in turn is unshakeably loyal to the master(the Emperor) and so Russ' loyalty was never in doubt. I liked it as a failsafe the emperor built into his executioners so that they coudn't turn on him no matter the circumstances

bittick
02-12-2013, 03:56
Wasn't it only Angels of Darkness by Gav Thorpe that gave people that idea anyway? Even then, it's the books in-universe fallen character which says that about Lion El Jonson. Everything before and after then makes it clear cut - it's just that people want the fallen angels to be the good guys and the 40k Dark Angels to be the baddies.

Yeah that's where it comes from. Decent book, but a lot of people missed the point of it. Taking Astelan's word for what happened is like listening to Darth Vader tell you how it's all Obi-Wan's fault.

m1acca1551
02-12-2013, 05:41
i'm not sure if this was put into canon but i always liked the idea of Russ' loyalty being absolute because of freaky canine DNA. the whole wolf pack mentality, and no i don't mean 'lets hit vegas', the whole idea that the legion(the pack) are utterly loyal to the alpha who in turn is unshakeably loyal to the master(the Emperor) and so Russ' loyalty was never in doubt. I liked it as a failsafe the emperor built into his executioners so that they coudn't turn on him no matter the circumstances

Russ's loyalty and that of his legion is very similar to that of dogs/wolves loyal to the strongest.. And those that them well, plenty of play time and pats.

The space wolves were given a great deal of freedom, and as the emperors chosen executioners they were loyal, if the emperor had chained them or mis treated them would they have stayed loyal or turned on the emperor??

Your theory may also go some way to give reason as to why they don't care what the imperium in the 40k universe thinks and often fights the imperium of man. Is this based on the wolf/animal nature of turning on those who don't have the strength of will or the respect of these beings. Or is it based on the current idea of they are belligerent space Vikings who like drinking??

An interesting point.

harlokin
02-12-2013, 07:15
"The Wolves will always come to heel when called. In that regard, it is a mystery why they name themselves wolves. They are tame, collared by the Emperor, obeying his every whim. But a wolf doesn’t behave that way. Only a dog does."

—Captain Khârn

The Emperor
02-12-2013, 12:06
You know, GW have rewritten their background a few times. Just recently, they removed chaos undivided entirely, with the effect that everything that had previously been written about the Word Bearers became sort of 'wrong'.

When that "one Fallen" introduced the idea that maybe the Fallen were the loyalists, or that there at the very least was something more (something that makes a bit more sense) behind the DA dark secret mystery past, a lot of people felt that GW were improving the background.

GW does rewrite the background from time to time, but there's a difference between a background retcon and some random character which we know is evil and has evil intentions spouting off in a novel. GW has been entirely consistent with the Dark Angels for the past 20+ years. Nobody should be acting surprised when the 2nd edition, 3rd edition, 4th edition, and 6th edition codex all say the same thing, as well as Index Astartes, countless articles, and every single Black Library novel which isn't "Angels of Death."


Some feel that the idea of Chaos Undivided didn't really make sense in the first place, and that GW have improved the background by removing it. The same could have been the case with the fleshing out of the DA background. Since they didn't continue on that path, we are left with 'emo' DA instead, which some people like, and some don't.

Except nothing was ever being "fleshed out." You had several Codex books and Index Astartes by that point telling you exactly what happened. Luther became a Daemon prince, duked it out with the Lion, and is currently sitting at the center of the Rock babbling about how the Lion will come back and forgive him. That doesn't offer a whole lot of wiggle room. Nevermind that the Fallen have made several on-again, off-again appearances in codex books for Chaos Marines. Maybe some people think it's an improvement, but other people don't think it'd be an improvement (Nevermind that it'd be a huge slap in the face to Dark Angels players! "Oh, hey guys, you're secretly Chaos Marines now!").

Nor does it make a shred of logical sense because, once again, if the Lion was the traitor and Luther and his bunch were the Loyalists, then how did Luther become a juiced up Daemon Prince who could take on a Primarch one-on-one, even though he was weaker than your traditional Space Marine due to being modified as an adult? If he were the Loyalist why would he be gibbering on about needing forgiveness? If the Fallen were the Loyalists, then why are some of them running around as Chaos Marines? If the Dark Angels were the Traitors, then why are they still Loyalist Marines serving the Imperium?

This sort of "fleshing out" wouldn't have improved anything, but instead made it irretrievably broken. Some people like it, I get it, but some people also don't understand basic storytelling and like it when things happen in stories without a solid foundation in logical progression "cuz it's kool, dude!" And frankly, while others may not have that requirement, I expect at least some logical cohesion out of a story that I'm immersed in.


Yeah that's where it comes from. Decent book, but a lot of people missed the point of it. Taking Astelan's word for what happened is like listening to Darth Vader tell you how it's all Obi-Wan's fault.

Hammer. Nail. Head.