Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Minor spoilers for the third Eisenhorn book.



Now not much more detail is given on the subject, but given the background of the Imperium, I take it that due to the millions of worlds populated by billions of people, terrorist attacks that kill the amounts of people like in 7/7 and Oslo are seen as petty crime. My question is what counter-terrorist measures (if any) do the Imperium employ? In real life, we either send elite armed police or military special forces to deal with them. In 40k, I couldn't see them sending Storm Troopers or Kasrkin after terrorists when there are more important things for them to do. Perhaps just sending Arbites with little regard for the safety of the public, just to deter those naughty terrorists from doing it again.

Adeptus Arbites deal with serious, high level crime. Their primary jurisdiction is counter-sedition. So if the terrorists in question have some kind of larger anti-Imperial agenda, the Arbites would definitely be on it.

Also, it's not a matter of "sending" the Arbites. The Arbites operate under their own remit as a division of Adpetus Terra.

Manchu wrote:Adeptus Arbites deal with serious, high level crime. Their primary jurisdiction is counter-sedition. So if the terrorists in question have some kind of larger anti-Imperial agenda, the Arbites would definitely be on it.

Also, it's not a matter of "sending" the Arbites. The Arbites operate under their own remit as a division of Adpetus Terra.

This exactly. If it is anti-imperial the Arbites will find the perpetrator and execute them.

Most local groups are going to be dealt with by the local government and PDF, which could take any form. If they don't worship Chaos, break Imperial interplanetary law, or threaten the collection of the tithe the Imperium doesn't care and considers it a local matter. They could even overthrow the local government. As long as the tithe goes uninterrupted the Imperium largely doesn't care.

Organizations that threaten local stability and the tithe, or break Imperial interplanetary law (sedition, trafficking Imperial controlled substances like psyker drugs or stealing from the munitorium) will attract the attention of the Adeptas Arbitas.

Sufficiently large threats (threatening sector stability, chaos worship, trafficking in psykers or xeno tech, various forms of heresy) will attract the attention of the Inquisition, who may handle it in any number of ways depending on the inquisitor involved.

But, again, by and large the Imperium doesn't care about local politics. If terrorists don't threaten the tithe, commit heresy, or break one of the few interplanetary laws that exist, the Imperium will consider it a local matter and leave the planet to it's own devices. If the local governor can put it down, so be it. If not, he was unfit to rule, and hopefully the new governor will do better. They had just better pay their tithe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is of course more likely that terrorists are going to be rebelling against the local government, not the Imperium proper. The Imperium by and large isn't oppressive in and of itself. It just lets the local lords do whatever the heck they want.

Dark Heresy has a great example of a world that is entirely run by warring factions. They fight over control of the local tithe material (a flower that produces a psycho active pollen useful in the creation of battle stimulants), because that is as far as the Imperiums interest goes. Control the tithe, control the planet.

Okay, so that's the order of escalation -

Terrorists threaten local government: local Enforcers/PDF.
Terrorists threaten tithes/munitorum: Arbites.
Terrorists under xeno/psyker/daemon influence: Inquisition.

Sturmtruppen wrote:Okay, so that's the order of escalation -

Terrorists threaten local government: local Enforcers/PDF.
Terrorists threaten tithes/munitorum: Arbites.
Terrorists under xeno/psyker/daemon influence: Inquisition.

Essentially yeah, that is the general rule, but with a lot of potential for fudging between the lines.

A well connected, noble governor may well be able to get the IG, Arbitas, or even an inquisitor involved before they would usually take attention.

Similarly an inquisitor may end up getting involved in a local matter because of personal interest, or because they suspect more is going on than really is.

The Ecclesiarchy or the AdMech may decide to handle the situation for any number of reasons.

The Imperium tends to have fairly simple, even fair guidelines that get muddled and corrupted by politics and human nature.

Also, the Arbites can get involved in any situation where the Lex Impeirum applies. I can imagine "activist judges" who insist on personally managing an entire planet's police forces top-down and I can imagine others that refuse to have anything to do with anything that is purely local.

The Adeptus Arbites, Inquisition (Ordo Hereticus in particular), and Officio Assassinorum are the 3 main internal security apparatuses of the Imperium. They'd be the most involved in "counter-terrorism".

Sabotage and acts of terror by revolutionary groups and Chaos Cults (the latter of which is depicted far more in fluff) is actually quite common.

Terrorism would not work against the Imperium. Free media is nonexistant. The people will only hear what the higher ups decide to let them. A attack can easily be framed as an accident and everyone who disagrees meets the Arbites.
Terrorism relies on a disproportional response like fear or caution. This is already happening in a totalitarian system.

Good point. The Imperium wages a constant war of terror on its own subjects.

Bouregard wrote:Terrorism would not work against the Imperium. Free media is nonexistant. The people will only hear what the higher ups decide to let them. A attack can easily be framed as an accident and everyone who disagrees meets the Arbites.
Terrorism relies on a disproportional response like fear or caution. This is already happening in a totalitarian system.

On the contrary, terrorism runs rampant. There are numerous reasons terrorism is still effective.

On densely packed hive worlds free media is unnecessary. Word of mouth does the work for them. It causes fear and unrest, making it difficult for the governor to control the populace and hopefully forcing him to make concessions to save face with his peers and the imperium.

It may focus on disrupting the tithe, which may cause the Imperium to turn on the local governor forcing a government change.

And the numerous worlds that DO have free media (not totally free, but free enough) it would work as it always has.

Cults do it to instill a sense of despair, fear, and hopelessness to slowly turn the populace towards chaos.

It can also happen for purely local reasons, to force changes in local government. Again, the Imperium doesn't enforce a culture or laws on planets.

Finally, the Imperium is NOT a totalitarian system, it is a feudal empire. It doesn't control the media, it doesn't control most information, it doesn't put many laws in place, and unless the tithe is threatened or heresy occurs it doesn't oppress. The mass oppression that occurs is due to the often hereditary local governors being allowed to do whatever they want

Bouregard wrote:Terrorism would not work against the Imperium. Free media is nonexistant. The people will only hear what the higher ups decide to let them. A attack can easily be framed as an accident and everyone who disagrees meets the Arbites.
Terrorism relies on a disproportional response like fear or caution. This is already happening in a totalitarian system.

As I pointed out in the original post, Eisenhorn features what was believed to be an attack by separatists wishing to secede from the Imperium. Which I take it would mean they don't want to hand over tithes any more. I imagine if you're in a family which has seen members dragged kicking and screaming to be fed to the Emperor or conscripted into the Guard to be thrown at the enemy, anti-Imperial terrorism might seem like a good idea. Or as has been discussed in this thread, you might just be part of a group that fancies being in charge of the planet for a while, but still as a government under the Imperium.

As for the idea of terrorism vs totalitarianism, I recommend looking into V for Vendetta.

riplikash wrote:Finally, the Imperium is NOT a totalitarian system, it is a feudal empire.

Good point but they aren't mutually exclusive. The absolutism with which the feudal lords assert themselves upon their vassals indicates that the system is basically totalitarian. Authentic feudal vassals have rights that are not grounded on the practical circumstances. This is not the case in the Imperium. The extreme example is the Inquisition. The Inquisition has absolute authority to do whatever it wants whenever it can. No one, save (perhaps) the Emperor, has any rights against the Inquisition. The ineffectiveness of a totalitarian system, the fact that it has to be content not to directly control everything, does not make it less authoritarian.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sturmtruppen wrote:As for the idea of terrorism vs totalitarianism, I recommend looking into V for Vendetta.

Interestingly, the acts of terror in that movie were shown to be signs of hope to everyone but the totalitarian rulers. Not quite what OP envisioned, I think, but it has been put to use by 40k writers before. Namely, the population gets fed up grinding themselves into the mud to produce the tithe, rebels and enjoys a brief golden age, before the Imperial Navy arrives ...

riplikash wrote:Finally, the Imperium is NOT a totalitarian system, it is a feudal empire. It doesn't control the media, it doesn't control most information, it doesn't put many laws in place, and unless the tithe is threatened or heresy occurs it doesn't oppress. The mass oppression that occurs is due to the often hereditary local governors being allowed to do whatever they want

Eh, not sure if I'd agree with that assessment. The Imperial Church has a huge impact on people's daily lives, and by setting tithe demands the Imperium is basically forcing local governors to enact draconic measures. The IoM can't just whitewash its hands off this just because the governors act as proxies taking the bulk of the blame. Planetary governments were, at some time, established by the armed forces of the Imperium, and its agents keep interfering with local matters on their quest to eradicate genetic mutations or heretical beliefs.

Maybe it helps to think of Nazi-Germany in relationship to Vichy France.

Manchu wrote:Good point but they aren't mutually exclusive. The absolutism with which the feudal lords assert themselves upon their vassals indicates that the system is basically totalitarian.

Certainly not, and I didn't mean to imply that they were. Plenty of worlds ARE totalitarian, but the Imperium itself isn't. It just allows totalitarian governments to rule.

Authentic feudal vassals have rights that are not grounded on the practical circumstances. This is not the case in the Imperium. The extreme example is the Inquisition. The Inquisition has absolute authority to do whatever it wants whenever it can.

But the feudal vassals (the local governors) do have rights. If they pay their tithes, defend their populace, and avoid heresy there is very little the Imperium proper can do. The Imperium largely cannot enact laws on the planets, discriminate against religion, make choices about forms of government, etc. It just so happens that part of their feudal agreement is that everyone will bow to the inquisition. That doesn't mean they don't have rights.

The problem is the serfs (general populace) don't necessarily have any rights from the Imperiums perspective. They may have rights at a local level, but that is beyond the scope of Imperial law.

The ineffectiveness of a totalitarian system, the fact that it has to be content not to directly control everything, does not make it less authoritarian.

But the point of a totalitarian system is that they CAN control everything. The Imperium is not authoritarian or totalitarian in nature, they are very limited in their control of their vassals. Their vassal worlds are very "free" (free to govern themselves anyways) for the most part. The existance of the Inquisition doesn't change the nature of the Imperial government. The Inquisition isn't part of the feudal government of the Imperium, they are a third party that everyone has agreed to give total authority to in order to curb heresy. The government has to bow to them just as much as the vassals.

If the Imperial Church had as much control as it wanted to, it wouldn't need the Sisters of Battle. And certainly, Ecclessiarchy control is going to be highly varied depending on the world. Even an organization as corrupt and stubborn as the Church is going to recognize that its influence will vary depending on the cultural background of the population. Especially since Exterminatus isn't an option every time the populace won't adhere to some minor part of the Imperial Cult.

Manchu wrote:

Sturmtruppen wrote:As for the idea of terrorism vs totalitarianism, I recommend looking into V for Vendetta.

Interestingly, the acts of terror in that movie were shown to be signs of hope to everyone but the totalitarian rulers. Not quite what OP envisioned, I think, but it has been put to use by 40k writers before. Namely, the population gets fed up grinding themselves into the mud to produce the tithe, rebels and enjoys a brief golden age, before the Imperial Navy arrives ...

Well the idea of terrorism is that it needs support from local groups. The actions of the IRA, that's war of independence, troubles, and the minority dissidents of today, got/get support from local Catholics. Anders Behring Breivik wanted to gain support from other Nationalists for his actions. Even al-Qaeda have a PR team. So in the case of the Imperium, terrorism can be used as a tool to affect local change, i.e. 'we can be a better government than them', or stir up a massive rebellion against the Imperium, like you said.

riplikash wrote:But the feudal vassals (the local governors) do have rights. If they pay their tithes, defend their populace, and avoid heresy there is very little the Imperium proper can do. The Imperium largely cannot enact laws on the planets, discriminate against religion, make choices about forms of government, etc. It just so happens that part of their feudal agreement is that everyone will bow to the inquisition. That doesn't mean they don't have rights.

Of course the Imperium discriminates against religion - any religion not approved by its state church, anyways.
And just because the Imperium as a whole isn't bothered by what happens on one of its thousands of worlds doesn't mean the High Lords could not simply demand a governor to step down and replace him with an offworld agent. The worlds are not allied to the Imperium, they have sworn absolute fealty to the Emperor, and with this to the Imperial Senate.

Local governors have as many "rights" as any feudal vassal in an absolute unconstitutional monarchy has: none. If the King says "jump", you better ask "how high" - or have a large enough army / sufficient influence with your fellow lords to afford saying no. There are sufficient examples in real world history regarding such relationships.

riplikash wrote:The Imperium is not authoritarian or totalitarian in nature, they are very limited in their control of their vassals.

Because the Imperium wants to, not because it needs to. If the Imperium wishes, if it truly deigns to focus its attention on some world, it can quickly become different. Church Confessors leading their flock in a local crusade against enemies of the Imperial Creed, Arbites enforcers gunning down civilians for disrupting the waiting queue in front of an Administratum building, Sororitas Kill-Squads purging entire communes due to genetic mutations amongst its populace, Imperial Assassins dispatched against noble lords, Inquisitors ursurping command of an entire planet's military forces. The list goes on.

riplikash wrote:The Inquisition isn't part of the feudal government of the Imperium

Actually, they are. The Inquisition is not under command of the High Lords, but it operates under command of the Emperor, who is the official head of state.

If we go by the wikipedia definition, the Imperium may not be totalitarian, but it most certainly is authoritarian.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:If the Imperial Church had as much control as it wanted to, it wouldn't need the Sisters of Battle. And certainly, Ecclessiarchy control is going to be highly varied depending on the world. Even an organization as corrupt and stubborn as the Church is going to recognize that its influence will vary depending on the cultural background of the population. Especially since Exterminatus isn't an option every time the populace won't adhere to some minor part of the Imperial Cult.

The Sisters Militant, although sometimes deployed in this function, actually have very little to do with enforcing the Ministorum's influence. They are far too rare for this role, anyways. The Imperial Cult's primary powerbase is the huge mass of people and the sway the clerics have over their flock - often including military officers and nobles themselves.

The Imperial Church does not have a problem with control over the local populace. Where it would wish to have more control are other Imperial organisations, but that is another topic.

Aside from pretty much agreeing with Lynata (par usual), I wanted to note about this statement:

riplikash wrote:But the point of a totalitarian system is that they CAN control everything.

If this were true then there has never been a totalitarian system yet seeing as how no system has ever managed to control everything. The issue is not capacity/ability but ideology and goals. A totalitarian state simply cannot control everything; but it purports that it should and that it will, in the case of any particular matter.

Lynata wrote:The Imperial Church does not have a problem with control over the local populace. Where it would wish to have more control are other Imperial organisations, but that is another topic.

Given the sheer number of crazy fluff stories we've read over twenty years that describe conditions that refute that, and across a million million worlds, I'd take exception with this idea. The Ecclessiarchy wants total control and goes to great pains to achieve it. It most certainly doesn't actually have it.

Lynata wrote:Of course the Imperium discriminates against religion - any religion not approved by its state church, anyways.

But the point is, as long as they place the Emperor at the head of their religion the Imperium does not mess with it. Part of the vassals responsibility is to ensure emporor worhship, but beyond that they have a lot of freedom in how it is enacted.

And just because the Imperium as a whole isn't bothered by what happens on one of its thousands of worlds doesn't mean the High Lords could not simply demand a governor to step down and replace him with an offworld agent. The worlds are not allied to the Imperium, they have sworn absolute fealty to the Emperor, and with this to the Imperial Senate.

I don't think you understand how swearing fealty works. The vassal has rights and responsibilities, just as the lord does. The High Lords really can't legally simply demand a governor step down and replace him if he is living up to his feudal responsibilities. That is why whenever the Imperium does something like that they frame it as heresy or failure to pay tithes. A true totalitarian state could just replace lords at will. The Imperium does not, and cannot. They need to first establish that the lord in question has lost his vassal rights by violating the terms of their vassal-ship.

Local governors have as many "rights" as any feudal vassal in an absolute unconstitutional monarchy has: none. If the King says "jump", you better ask "how high" - or have a large enough army / sufficient influence with your fellow lords to afford saying no. There are sufficient examples in real world history regarding such relationships.

I don't think you understand how a an absolute monarchy works. Vassals have tons of rights. That is what it means to be a vassal, what it means to swear fealty: the vassal agrees to certain terms in exchange for certain rights and protections. Peasants swear fealty to lords: protection and leadership in exchange for upkeep and deferring to their lords judgement. Similarly Lords swear fealty to other lords, promising to serve them and pay upkeep in exchange for further protection and leadership. Despite what movies would have you believe most lords and kings couldn't simply trod on the rights of their vassals. The ones who did are famous precisely because of what a violation of custom such behavior was.

The Imperium works the same way. Vassals swear fealty, follow certain agreements, and pay taxes in exchange for rights an protection, which the High Lords largely cannot trod upon without inciting civil war.

Because the Imperium wants to, not because it needs to. If the Imperium wishes, if it truly deigns to focus its attention on some world, it can quickly become different.

And yet in the fluff when such actions are taken it is by convincing the local lords to partake and the gathering of money and political favors, not by High Lord fiat.

Church Confessors leading their flock in a local crusade against enemies of the Imperial Creed, Arbites enforcers gunning down civilians for disrupting the waiting queue in front of an Administratum building, Sororitas Kill-Squads purging entire communes due to genetic mutations amongst its populace, Imperial Assassins dispatched against noble lords, Inquisitors ursurping command of an entire planet's military forces. The list goes on.

The churches local crusades are local matters, and typically volentary. The Arbites gunning down civilians disrupting Administratum buildings is perfectly within their rights as Administratum buildings are typically Imperial property, not local, and they are entitled to protect it. Genetic mutations are a violation of the Imperial law local governors agree to uphold, if they allow mutation to run rampant they are considered to have waved their rights as lords, thus allowing the Imperium to step in. Bowing to inquisitoria rule, as I have mentioned, is something both the vassals AND the government do, they are a third party responsible for keeping both sides free of corruption. Imperial assassins are officially there to take out heretics (again, lords who have violated their vassal agreement), not as tools of political expedience like the Nazi SS. Much like the Inquisition they exist to ensure everyone, even the high lords, keeps to their side of the agreement.

Nothing you listed involves the Imperium troding on the rights of their vassals and exerting totalitarian control. It is all either vassals not upholding their responsabilities and thus waving their rights, or perfectly legal protection of interests.

Actually, they are. The Inquisition is not under command of the High Lords, but it operates under command of the Emperor, who is the official head of state.

Spiritually speaking, yes. The same way technically God was the head of all real world states during the middle ages. But when it comes to the actual governing of the Imperium they are a separate entity.

Even if they weren't it still doesn't violate the rights of the vassals, as allowing the Inquisition to act as watchmen for all sides is part of their feudal agreement.

The fact the High Lords are answerable to the Inquisition and the Assasitorum is proof that they are not a totalitarian government. If they are totalitarian, who is in control?

If we go by the wikipedia definition, the Imperium may not be totalitarian, but it most certainly is authoritarian.

At a cursory glance one might be able to make that argument I agree. But lets stick with Wikipedia, and go beyond the first paragraph:
"In politics, an authoritarian government is one in which political authority is concentrated in a small group of politicians."
Well that certainly isn't the case. The Imperium has an insanely decentralized government, with numerous nodes of power that are largely independent of one another. Space Marine Chapters, Inquisitors, Rogue Traders, and the High Lords are largely independent of each other. Likewise, the Imperium lacks much direct control over local governors.

"Authoritarianism is characterized by highly concentrated, and centralized power maintained by political repression and the exclusion of potential challengers. It uses political parties and mass organizations to mobilize people around the goals of the regime."
The Imperium is also very factional within itself. There is no unified party controlling things, but many disperate parties and organizations vying for control.

I'll stop there, but I were to keep going through the article the trend continues while the Imperium shares some traits with a truly authoritarian government, they are fairly superficial. It's far too large and complex an organization to act in a truly authoritarian manner.

That being said, many of the organizations and factions within the Imperium are authoritarian, and an authoritarian mindset is common to Imperial citizens. But the Imperial government itself is not.

The Imperial Church does not have a problem with control over the local populace. Where it would wish to have more control are other Imperial organisations, but that is another topic.

Again, yes and no. Sure, if you treat the church as a single entity it has total control, but it is no more a single entity than Christianity is. It is full of factions, cults, and creeds all vying for power and control.

There are NO monolithic organizations in the Imperium.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:Aside from pretty much agreeing with Lynata (par usual), I wanted to note about this statement:

riplikash wrote:But the point of a totalitarian system is that they CAN control everything.

If this were true then there has never been a totalitarian system yet seeing as how no system has ever managed to control everything. The issue is not capacity/ability but ideology and goals. A totalitarian state simply cannot control everything; but it purports that it should and that it will, in the case of any particular matter.

I mean legally speaking, not practically. A totalitarian system can legally do whatever it wants. The Imperium cannot, it has to follow it's own feudal laws, which respect the rights of their vassal lords. When they want to replace a vassal lord they need to establish they have violated their vassal agreement.

Even the Inquisition follows this for the most part. They don't just take out governors and Space Marine chapters, they first declare them heretics. Certainly they have an easier time of it than most, but they still follow the feudal laws.

riplikash wrote:I don't think you understand how swearing fealty works.

The problem here is not misunderstanding feudalism. The problem is misunderstanding the Imperium. To wit, this is just not an accurate depiction of the Imperium:

riplikash wrote:The vassal has rights and responsibilities, just as the lord does. The High Lords really can't legally simply demand a governor step down and replace him if he is living up to his feudal responsibilities. That is why whenever the Imperium does something like that they frame it as heresy or failure to pay tithes. A true totalitarian state could just replace lords at will. The Imperium does not, and cannot. They need to first establish that the lord in question has lost his vassal rights by violating the terms of their vassal-ship.

And also:

And yet in the fluff when such actions are taken it is by convincing the local lords to partake and the gathering of money and political favors, not by High Lord fiat.

If the High Lords are present in the form of the Munitorium, there is no need to "ask." Or rather, there is no difference between asking and demanding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

riplikash wrote:Even the Inquisition follows this for the most part. They don't just take out governors and Space Marine chapters, they first declare them heretics. Certainly they have an easier time of it than most, but they still follow the feudal laws.

This is another good example of your misunderstanding. Totalitarianism is not the opposite of law. The existence of law in the Imperium does not mean it cannot be a totalitarian institution. To the contrary, the Lex Imperialis is one of the instruments whereby the Imperium exerts its totalitarian stance. Inquisitors do not accuse governors of heresy merely as a cover for political actions -- i.e., looking for some justification in the law for an unlawful actions. Inquisitors represent the highest law of the Imperium: the mandate from the God-Emperor to avert heresy. They invoke a law that trumps all others -- the absolute decree of the totalitarian system.

I would like to ask one more time, if the Imperium is a totalitarian government, who is in control? The High Lords who can be taken out by assassins and inquisitors? The inquisitors who can't govern and can't reliably command the Astartes or the Rogue Traders? The Ecclesiarcy? The Administratum? There is no one group that controls the Imperium, or has unlimited right to rule. All the groups and factions have their own rights and powers, and largely hold one another in check.

Manchu wrote:The problem here is not misunderstanding feudalism. The problem is misunderstanding the Imperium.

I was referencing your remark that vassals have the same rights as any vassals in an absolute monarchy: none. That simply isn't true. Vassals have tons of rights, that is why they are vassals.

If the High Lords are present in the form of the Munitorium, there is no need to "ask." Or rather, there is no difference between asking and demanding.

Yes, a High Lord can trod on the rights of his/her vassals via military force, as anyone with an army can attempt to do. The was that is prevented in a feudal society is distributed power. If a king violates the rights of one vassal lord, it indicates he is willing to violate the rights of others. He has violated his legal right to rule and invites sedition and rebellion from everyone around him, from his lords to his personal aides. His lords, feeling their power and authority threatened, will begin to withhold support and tithes, and may eventually turn on him in rebellion.

In the Imperium a High Lord trodding on the rights of his vassals invites inquisitorial and assassinorum attention. He/she risks losing Ecclesiarchal, Astartes, and Adeptus Mechanus support. Once vassals start seeing their rights are in danger they are quick to call heresy. A high lord acting in such a manner demonstrating hubris and political ignorance, and thus is unlikely to remain a high lord for long.

I don't think you understand how a an absolute monarchy works. Vassals have tons of rights. That is what it means to be a vassal, what it means to swear fealty: the vassal agrees to certain terms in exchange for certain rights and protections. Peasants swear fealty to lords: protection and leadership in exchange for upkeep and deferring to their lords judgement. Similarly Lords swear fealty to other lords, promising to serve them and pay upkeep in exchange for further protection and leadership. Despite what movies would have you believe most lords and kings couldn't simply trod on the rights of their vassals. The ones who did are famous precisely because of what a violation of custom such behavior was.

The Imperium works the same way. Vassals swear fealty, follow certain agreements, and pay taxes in exchange for rights an protection, which the High Lords largely cannot trod upon without inciting civil war.

In an absolute monarchy, no, the vassals have no "rights" recognized by anyone or anything. It is, of course, in the monarch's best interests to defend his vassals, but he is under absolutely no legal requirement to do so.

So it is with the Imperium. They are not *required* to do anything for a planet... the planet, however, is *required* to do a whole lot of things... meet their tithe, surrender their psykers to the Black Ships, allow the installation of the Ecclesiarchy, and so forth and so on. It is, of course, in the Imperium's best interests to defend a given world from heretics and xenos, because they want those tithes and don't want the enemy to have them, but if the Imperium doesn't do this, there is no higher authority or any court system a Planetary Governor can appeal to or file a suit against the High Lords in over his grievances.

Also, a planetary tithe is not a tax. A tax is something you pay into a government in exchange for an expectation of services, such as roads, schools, police and fire services, and so forth and so on. A tithe is given to an organization, such as a church, with no expectation or assurance of any material good or service being rendered in return. The Imperium doesn't tax people... they take tithes from them. Actually, more accurately, the Imperium does both, and the service you expect/are given in return for your tax is the continued ability to make use of the good or service you just purchased.

When it comes to collecting the tithe, the Imperium shows up and takes it. If you failed to meet your tithe grade? The Inquisition might haul the Planetary Governor out of his office/palace/whatever and shoot him. This is certainly within the Imperium's, and the Inquisition's, rights, though there's many other options available.

Well that certainly isn't the case. The Imperium has an insanely decentralized government, with numerous nodes of power that are largely independent of one another. Space Marine Chapters, Inquisitors, Rogue Traders, and the High Lords are largely independent of each other. Likewise, the Imperium lacks much direct control over local governors

No, they aren't. A Space Marine Chapter that refuses the orders of the High Lords are Renegades. Often becoming declared Excommunicatus Traitorus. An Inquisitor technically has more "authority" than a High Lord, but the application of this authority is circumstantial. An Inquisitor can, technically, walk into the office of a Planetary Governor and make any demand he wishes. His superiors at the Inquisitorial Head Office for that sector may very seriously frown upon such exercises of the rosette. Now, if the planet in question is under threat of Xeno, Heretic or Daemonic threat, then the Inquisitor's actions might be entirely justified... especially if the Planetary Governor is in collusion with such elements. It bears noting that one of the High Lords of Terra is the Grand Master of the Inquisition, who (amongst his/her other duties) watches the others for signs of corruption and taint. By the same token, however, a High Lord can declare a given Planetary Governor "fired" and struck from the record as having any rights or responsibilities to the planet he was the Governor of, for any reason that strike their fancy. This, of course (as with anything else) has repercussions and will almost always cause instability and unrest, which is why it doesn't happen often, but it is certainly within the rights of a High Lord to do. Much in the same way a noble house can have its colors struck and its heraldry removed by an absolute monarch. This didn't happen IRL very often because, again, of the repercussions of such an action, but it was certainly within the legal right of the absolute monarchs to do so.

riplikash wrote:I would like to ask one more time, if the Imperium is a totalitarian government, who is in control?

That's the horror of totalitarianism, my friend. This is exactly why what is going on with the Golden Throne is such a big deal. Look back into the fluff for the old Inquisitor skirmish game, for example. Also, see George Orwell.

Also, I didn't make any remark about vassals having no rights in an absolute monarchy. The Imperium is not an absolute monarchy. It's a totalitarian state with a feudal veneer. In point of fact, the lower rungs of the hierarchy have no rights as against the higher rungs. This is why an Inquisitor can summarily execute a general or a governor (in theory; obviously, the Inquisitor would consider the situation in practice -- but that's not a matter of rights). Meanwhile, a governor cannot make a counter accusation of heresy against even a radical Inquisitor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is one truly feudal relationship in the Imperium -- that between the Adeptus Mechanicus and Adeptus Terra. Mars definitely has rights as against Terra.

Manchu wrote:This is another good example of your misunderstanding. Totalitarianism is not the opposite of law. The existence of law in the Imperium does not mean it cannot be a totalitarian institution. To the contrary, the Lex Imperialis is one of the instruments whereby the Imperium exerts its totalitarian stance.

And I contend that this is an example of your misunderstanding of how the Imperium, feudal governments in general, and totalitarian governments in specific work.

Totalitarianism is defined by wikipedia as: "Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible."

This is absolutely not the case in the Imperium. The Imperial government has recognizable limits to its authority (the internal management of planets) and performs very little regulation of public and private life.

Inquisitors do not accuse governors of heresy merely as a cover for political actions -- i.e., looking for some justification in the law for an unlawful actions.

Not always, but the Inquisition is as corrupt as any other Imperial institution. My point was that when they want to act politically they cannot simply say "everyone do this." Their authority resides in rooting out heresy, and they must always frame their actions in such a way. A true totalitarian government has no such need.

Inquisitors represent the highest law of the Imperium: the mandate from the God-Emperor to avert heresy.

Yeah, in the same way medieval Europe was a single country under god. But "God" isn't running things. The reality of the situation is there is no central authority in the Imperium, no one entity who can act in a totalitarian manner and exert unlimited control. Vassals and lords have rights, and for any individual or faction to trod upon them flippantly is for that individual or faction to invite destruction.

They invoke a law that trumps all others -- the absolute decree of the totalitarian system.

No, even the inquisition has limits, even if they are easily side stepped. They have unlimited power in rooting out and prosecuting heresy, nothing more. They must always frame their actions in such a manner. They only have as much power as they appear to be a valid authority. Just as a high lord, If an inquisitor overstepped his bounds and attempted true totalitarian rule he would risk losing the validity of his authority, causing his peers, the Astartes, the Military, and the local governors to turn on him. It is going to be difficult for an inquisitor to command anyone if their peers and the general populace believe they have violated the limits of their authority, and thus forfeited their position as agents of God.

Even the Inquisition must work within the framework of their feudal rights.

Feudal rights are not the same thing as contingent circumstances. An inquisitor standing in a room full of enemies will not declare himself provisional head of the planet's resources. In point of law, he definitely could do so. And the governor would have no recourse in law against the action. At best, the governor could try to complain to the sector conclave for all it would accomplish. What governors ultimately have to do is appeal to extra-legal methods, like having Inquisitors and their agents murdered.

Again and again and again, you claim that a system can only be totalitarian if it achieves its aims. Again and again and again, I will remind you that the thing is defined by its intent rather than its result.

Even the Inquisition must work within the framework of their feudal rights.

The feudal rights of the Inquisition are the next best thing to absolute.

Of all the people in the Imperium, there are two groups that are not beholden to the authority of the Rosette. One of these groups is the God-Emperor, Himself. The other is the Adeptus Custodes.

That's it.

Anyone else? An Inquisitor is entirely, perfectly, 100% within his rights to shoot you in the face with his bolt-pistol. High Lord, Chapter Master, Tech-Priest, Hive scum. Doesn't matter.

I think there's a lot of misconception here between the perception of the fluff, and the reality.

The Imperium, like I pointed out with the Ecclessiarchy, wants total control. As we've seen, over and over in evidence, that it doesn't actually have total control. On a practical, day to day basis, worlds of the Imperium are effectively independent, in a sworn-vassal status that relies entirely on voluntary participation. Now, there are definitely punishments and retribution in most cases where the participation is opted out of, lol.

Space Marines seem to really work on an even more exaggerated version of this. There's very little oversight, and from what we've seen, very little punishment, of Marine Chapters pursuing their own parallel agendas. The High Lords might be able to issue orders to Space Marines, but it is still up to the Marines to accept them because the ability to track and enforce those orders is limited.

SM get brought to heel as well. The Badab War is a great example.