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.

The only common belief among Imperial worlds is that the Emperor is a god. There are actually planets that tolerate xenos, even though such actions are usually considered heresy. Citizens on forge worlds may actually worship the Machine God, but I'm not totally sure.

Sort of. The laymen of such worlds often worship the Emperor-as-Omnissiah.

DOOMBREAD wrote:There are actually planets that tolerate xenos, even though such actions are usually considered heresy.

And would be dealt with as such if Imperial organisations would take notice. Xeno hate is part of the Imperial Creed, after all.

DOOMBREAD wrote:Citizens on forge worlds may actually worship the Machine God, but I'm not totally sure.

The AdMech has found an interesting cop-out in that they claim the Machine God is an aspect of the God-Emperor. This way, they can continue preaching the Omnissian faith without actually committing heresy. Some people in the Ecclesiarchy wouldn't necessarily agree with that assessment, but in general this is an accepted compromise allowed to persist in order to keep the peace.

There are worlds that trade with the Tau, the Eldar, and other Xenos who aren't slavering, face-eating horrors... but these worlds tend to be backwaters, with little to no Ecclesiarchal or Administratum presence out in the boonies where such deals go down. You won't see Eldar Corsairs docking at the local Hive World, for example.

Or they're brokered by a Rogue Trader aboard his vessel, the Illustrious Honeybadger, because he certainly does not give a feth.

Manchu wrote:I can imagine a group that distantly recalls the Great Crusade and goes around attacking all the other groups in the name of the Truth. They even have a symbol of the Truth, a double-headed eagle. They denounce every practice not sanctioned under this sign of Truth (basically whatever their leader says is okay) as "religious superstition" or a "corruption of Truth." In the face of such "irrationality" they apply violence with extreme prejudice.

Extreme atheists? I like it!

It's a just a microcosmic version of the nonsense going on during the Great Crusade.

Look worshipping the big E is imperial law and if you dont worship the big E then they will set this guy on you

Actually, it'll be this chick:



That dude is for something more specific.

Not if these get to him first:



(I guess you could say that, on Imperial worlds, it is generally rather unhealthy to have a coming-out as an atheist)

Atheists think of themselves as "coming out"? -- ugh, nevermind, it's for a different thread ...

But as a matter of the law, those priests have no jurisdiction. Indeed, they might not even recognize that the offender is in violation of the Lex Imperialis. The offender himself may not even know for that matter!

Hmm, perhaps not in violation of Imperial Law, but possibly in violation of Ecclesiarchal law. The Enforcer novel series by Mitchell implies that people can be fined or sentenced to various penances by local religious officials for a variety of religious crimes, most of which are rather petty.

True, not genuflecting when passing a relic of a rug that once laid on a floor that the Emperor once walked on, etc., could be punished by the priests or the Sisters. Sedition, however, is in the purview of the Adeptus Arbites. Betraying the Imperium is heresy; heresy is not the exclusive purview of the Ecclesiarchy.

Manchu wrote:But as a matter of the law, those priests have no jurisdiction.

When it comes to matters of faith, they do. And in the Imperium, faith is a law unto itself.

The 2E Codex is particularly informative on the capabilities and influence of the Ministorum's clergy:
"A Preacher discovering a heretical cult may rouse his followers to attack the enemy and cast them out."
"Imperial citizens can commit a multitude of sins, ranging from fairly minor infractions like making the wrong response to a hymnal, to heresy and blasphemy. [...] For the most serious offences, there can be no mercy, regardless of status, wealth or breeding. [...] Minor offences can be repaid in a number of different ways. The greater the act performed in the Emperor's name, the more forgiveness is afforded by the Ecclesiarchy."
"The Ecclesiarchy, especially the Confessors, is particularly determined in its duty to hunt down these menaces to humanity. Huge witch hunts can embroil communities, even whole planets, casting a pall of suspicion and fear across the population. The citizens of the Imperium are exhorted to spy on their neighbours, confess tehir own sins and root out the enemy within. Occasionally, things can get out of hand, either due to the magnificent oratory of the Confessor or through the manipulations of other individuals or organisations."

So basically, the clerics are quite free to gather a mob and go around shooting people they declared to be "heretics". That is their jurisdiction.

In a way, this extends to sedition as well. Anyone entertaining the thought of going rogue automatically denounces the God-Emperor, thus is a heretic, thus is an enemy of the Ecclesiarchy. Not of the Ecclesiarchy alone, but the faithful will not just stand idly on the side either.

I think you'll find clerics and their mobs are quickly put down if the local Judge finds them in violation of the Lex Imperialis. And unlike Inquisitors, Arbites aren't generally as concerned about "soft power."

I imagine it gets "political" when that sort of stuff comes up, and Arbites response would probably vary depending on the relative power of the Ecclesiarchy over the world.

I doubt it. Obstruction of the Adeptus Arbites is tantamount to exposing oneself as a heretic. Don't forget that the Ecclesiarchy is a comparative outsider to the Imperial infrastructure given it lacks membership in the Priesthood of Terra (and how disastrous this proved when it was briefly not the case).

Manchu wrote:I doubt it. Obstruction of the Adeptus Arbites is tantamount to exposing oneself as a heretic. Don't forget that the Ecclesiarchy is a comparative outsider to the Imperial infrastructure given it lacks membership in the Priesthood of Terra (and how disastrous this proved when it was briefly not the case).

Well, I imagine it's much like the real world. The more devoutly religious the population, the more power held by religious figures. The Ecclesiarchy might not have a military presence to rival the Arbites, but a particularly influential figure declaring the Arbites in a sector to be exommunicate traitorus? Well, that's a bad day for the Arbites.

Manchu wrote:I think you'll find clerics and their mobs are quickly put down if the local Judge finds them in violation of the Lex Imperialis.

Perhaps, yet all of these things do not seem to be a violation of said law. In fact, the Codex says that Preachers may even lead squads of Arbites, and that they often aid the Judges in local purges.

The Adeptus Arbites is a sub-section of the Adeptus Terra - and both the Adeptus Ministorum as well as the Inquisition stand apart from this body. Thus it may be possible that the clergy is as immune to the Arbites as an Inquisitor would be, and lastly it is the Adepta Sororitas who are tasked with policing the ranks of the Ecclesiarchy and cull the power of wayward clergymen, not the Judges. At least I have found nothing in the studio material that would point towards the Judges' long arm of the law extending this far. Much of this is very speculative, mind you, for there is sadly not a lot of GW fluff about the Arbites in general, and most of it is contained in the rather old Codex Imperialis. Or was there some newer studio source that I missed or may just not remember? Information would, as always, appreciated.

Panopticon wrote:I imagine it gets "political" when that sort of stuff comes up, and Arbites response would probably vary depending on the relative power of the Ecclesiarchy over the world.

I suppose so - the Imperium is a vast bureaucracy with many of its arms busy scheming against one another. Mechanicus versus Ecclesiarchy, Navy versus Astartes, Inquisitor versus Inquisitor. In the end, a single official's power is only as great as the influence he is able to wield over local forces, especially given the intricacies of warp travel, the relative unreliability of communication, and the speed with which the Imperium's various Adepta can process incoming reports and messages. Many Imperial organisations claim their influence applies to others, who then claim they are rightfully independent and do not accept outside influence. It's why we're so used to see Imperial forces fighting each other.

Manchu wrote:Don't forget that the Ecclesiarchy is a comparative outsider to the Imperial infrastructure given it lacks membership in the Priesthood of Terra

Well, the Ecclesiarchy stands apart and is placed directly under the High Lords - which include members of both Adepta. In the end, the Ecclesiarch has the same standing and vote on the Senatorum as the Grand Provost Marshal.

The argument from structure seems good at first. The idea that the Ecclesiarchy and the Inquisition are not a part of Adeptus Terra might indicate that Adeptus Arbites has no authority over them. But I think that is premised on a misunderstanding of Imperial law. The Ecclesiarchy, as discussed in this thread, has high level unity and ground level diversity. The Cardinal of Agriworld 34530757 in the Deathgrim Sector does not share the theological tradition of the Cardinal of Shrineworld 76143930 in the Skulldark Sector. But the Lex Imperialis is the same everywhere and it is the sole mandate of the Arbites is to ensure its uniform enforcement everywhere. No subject of the Master of Mankind (that is every single human being) is exempt from the jurisdiction of the Provost Marshall. The only exception in fact to this that I think is meaningful (that is, not merely an artifact of the instant political circumstances of some given situation) is the Adeptus Mechanicus. Mars, after all, is in actuality a parallel empire rather than a subset of the Terran Imperium.

Think of it like this: the Ecclesiarchy have some interesting theories about the Emperor which in most cases are conducive to the authority of the Emperor's servants. But the Arbites are the Emperor's direct servants. Their activities do not help along the authority of the Emperor; they are the expression of his authority itself. And, according to the DH books, the Inquisitorial Rosette is not an excuse to contravene the Lex Imperialis. An Inquisitor is a bad enemy to make; but the Arbites fastidiously adhere to the law and insist that every one of the Emperor's subjects do so, too.

I do not believe that Inquisitors ("they have the highest authority, second only to the Emperor Himself") are subject to the Adeptus Arbites' enforcement of Imperial Law - indeed, according to GW's own Inquisitor RPG they can even bring in their own enforcers to simply replace any local Arbites if they so wish. And if they stand apart, and the Adeptus Mechanicus (whose people are, in the end, subjects of the Emperor too) stands apart, where does it say it would apply to the Adeptus Ministorum, whose Preachers can be in a position of leadership over an Arbites team as well? This organisation has a powerbase so vast it literally affects each Imperial citizen's life, from the lowly hab worker to the mightiest noble. And even Arbites are religious.

As for the Imperial Law being the same everywhere - that may be true on principle, yet in the Codex Imperialis we read on each day entire books being added to it. I am not sure whether the Arbites are truly able to ensure timely updates throughout the entire Imperium, as this would make their organisation a thousand times more efficient than any other Imperial body. But I suppose you were referring to some ancient core paragraphs now that have been in place for millennia, and not those pesky additions that are quite likely to be subsections to subsections to subsections?

Lastly, the fight against the witch and the heretic can never be at odds with the Imperial Law, else said law would be in conflict with the Imperial Creed. Furthermore, all Arbites hail from the Schola Progenium, so are likely to come with a certain amount of respect for the Imperial Church and its agents as they were raised by them. I do not think they would be at odds very often - at least as long as a Preacher is not behaving so weird that the Ecclesiarchy itself would act on it.

Perhaps the Imperium has something akin to our real world's ecclesiastical immunities like Duo Sunt? Just a thought, mind you. It could be that the Arbites have all power to deal with Ecclesiarchy officials as they see fit. It could be that the Arbites may arrest them, but have to surrender them to the Ministorum for a clerical trial. It could be that all the Arbites are able to do is forward reports and requests to a higher office of the Ecclesiarchy. It could also be that the Arbites have all the rights but simply do not wish to interfere because they simply do not perceive the clergy's doing as "wrong". At this point I am not truly convinced of either answer and remain sceptical. All I know is: there are Ecclesiarchy Preachers with flamethrowers running through the streets, apparently torching people at will and raising mobs of frenzied citizens, and no Arbites interference is ever mentioned anywhere.

Maybe this is just because the Arbites do not perceive the clergy's doing as a "threat to the Imperium"? As the CI says, "of the personal misdemeanours of the citizens of a million worlds, the Judges care nothing. Such matters are for the Lords of individual worlds to deal with as they wish." When the Preachers burn some citizens, the Imperium as a whole cares gak, so the Arbites care gak. Only when they start to interfere in actual Imperial stuff might the Arbites get active, but by that time the Sisters would, too. Then again, maybe this is what made for such a good working relationship between the two organisations.

I assume there was no other GW source discussing this rather interesting topic, was there? Some White Dwarf article perhaps?

I would suggest that you read the Book of Judgement in the DH series and the DH books generally. Arbitrators enlisted by Inquisitors are known to turn on them if the Arbitrator determines the Inquisitor has seriously transgressed the law. (BoJ p. 9 and there are references of this elsewhere -- I think including the core book.) Of course, these Inquisitors are usually radicals ...

The fact is that the Arbitrators, Inquisitors, and Ecclesiarchical clerics share a common culture (right out of the schola) and are ideally always on the "same side." But when there are tensions, clerics aren't going to be saved by their ravings nor Inquisitors by their rosettes. If a mob of the faithful attacked a lowly Administratum clerk in their religious fervor, the Chastners would drag them out of the streets before the Arbitrators where they would meet the authority of their God-Emperor. For the Arbitrators, the Lex Imperialis is a matter of religion. And, as I said, whereas the Ecclesiarchy has "theories" about the Emperor's divinity, the Adeptus Arbites are charged with the actual enforcement of his divine will via the law.

Nah, for my own interpretation of the setting, I am interested solely in GW studio material - I stopped considering Dark Heresy as a source some time ago when it tried to tell me weird things like the SoB carrying "civilian bolters", or that the Calixis Sector apparently houses 1/5th of two Major Orders' total military power each, or that the Deathwatch is no longer under control of the Ordo Xenos, or that there are PDF with bolters or power armour, etc.

When FFG's vision of 40k differs from the studio on these details, I don't see why I should pay it any heed elsewhere. Especially the BoJ - I understand it was written in large part by the author of the Shira Calpurnia novels, and these have deviated from the studio material in some details as well.

Sadly, and as confirmed by various writers and game designers, there is just no consistency between the sources, so I have chosen to limit my perception to what GW is putting out alone (though I too adopt things from the licensed products that seem to "fit in" from time to time) in order to increase it. At least there, things may only change between editions, if at all.

If anybody has additional studio references aside from the Codex Imperialis and GW's Inquisitor RPG, I'd be more than welcome to accept those, though!

Yeah, I've seen you toss around this "studio material" label quite a bit. I think it's a pretty silly standard couched in an authoritative way. I mean, you're including Inquisitor and Codex Imperialis but not FFG stuff? You give old, obviously neglected sources primacy because of where they were written. No consistency between sources means no consistency between any sources. None of the "studio" guys have ever privileged Nottingham twenty years ago over Roseville today. As far as personal interpretations of the fluff go, you're free to believe in Femarines and Chaos Tau if you like. But this is a discussion, as far as I am participating in it, about the published setting -- which includes Arbitrators that stand up to Inquisitors, et alia.

The "published setting" is not even intended to be consistent - the people writing it have said as much, including those who have participated in FFG material.
In a way, there is no single one published setting. What is published is a collection of interpretations, so in essence a whole number of slightly different settings following the same basics.

I won't argue with people preferring licensed publications over studio material, that is a valid choice to make. At the same time, however, the discussion becomes limited to that particular product and anything ever published in GW's books is rendered irrelevant. That needs to be acknowledged and accepted if such a choice is made.

PS: Ironically, Femarines and Chaos Tau are probably more likely to pop up in licensed products than in GW books, considering what I've read so far concerning the artistic licence.

Lynata wrote:In a way, there is no single one published setting.

To the extent that this is meaningful, it is an argument against arbitrary preferences being elevated as "studio material."

I won't argue with people preferring licensed publications over studio material

But that's not the argument. The argument is: by the admission of people like Gav Thorpe, 40k "canon" exists wherever there is 40k. If that means to some "it doesn't exist at all," well, fine. But what it cannot imply is that contemporaneous sources are relatively more or less "accurate."

Ironically, Femarines and Chaos Tau are probably more likely to pop up in licensed products than in GW books, considering what I've read so far concerning the artistic licence.

Have you been reading the most recent codicies?

I would suggest that you read the Book of Judgement in the DH series and the DH books generally. Arbitrators enlisted by Inquisitors are known to turn on them if the Arbitrator determines the Inquisitor has seriously transgressed the law. (BoJ p. 9 and there are references of this elsewhere -- I think including the core book.) Of course, these Inquisitors are usually radicals ...

To be fair, that is an oblique reference to Chastener Fischig and Eisenhorn, as Dan Abnett is, I believe, one of the contributing authors to FFG/DH. Also, given the Judge Dredd influence to the Arbites, an Arbite attempting to take on a Radical (or otherwise) Inquisitor is taking the "I *am* the Law!" line to heart, dispensing justice in accordance with a law upon a person he does not have the authority to dispense justice upon and who, by the Emperor's own decree, is not bound by any law. The Arbiter in this situation is going with what he knows and believes, that is the enforcement of Imperial Law, against someone whom is not really bound by it.

Manchu wrote:To the extent that this is meaningful, it is an argument against arbitrary preferences being elevated as "studio material."

I definitively agree that this is solely my own preference, hence me mentioning that anyone elevating licensed publications to a level where it is able to override studio material is not "wrong" either.
The fact is that there are conflicts, and without any sort of guidance - indeed, the intentional absence of guidance - it falls to us to choose what we want to believe in. You remember the thread where ADB posted and discussed this concept?

I am falling back to the studio material because it is the "original vision", and I believe most people here regard it as fairly important. Licensed material, on the other hand ... everybody has his or her own share of books he doesn't like and others they love, which I think constitutes a lack of common ground for discussions like this one.

Manchu wrote:The argument is: by the admission of people like Gav Thorpe, 40k "canon" exists wherever there is 40k.

But that is not what Gav Thorpe said at all.

"With Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000, the notion of canon is a fallacy. [...] Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 exist as tens of thousands of overlapping realities in the imaginations of games developers, writers, readers and gamers. None of those interpretations is wrong."
-- http://mechanicalhamster.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/jumping-the-fence/

Manchu wrote:If that means to some "it doesn't exist at all," well, fine. But what it cannot imply is that contemporaneous sources are relatively more or less "accurate."

Well, yes. It depends entirely on what sources you as an individual have chosen to subscribe to. It would be wrong to say that a source is less accurate than another when they are not even meant to "adhere to some nonexistent construct or 'true' representation of the setting", as Andy Hoare put it. Each source needs to be evaluated independently - one cannot be more accurate than another, just like it cannot override another. You just have to pick the one you want to roll with.

As does the studio:
"If the developers and other creative folks believe a contribution by an author fits the bill and has an appeal to the audience, why not fold it back into the ‘game’ world - such as Gaunt’s Ghosts or characters from the Gotrek and Felix series. On the other hand, if an author has a bit of a wobbly moment, there’s no pressure to feel that it has to be accepted into the worldview promulgated by the codexes and army books."

Lynata wrote:"With Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000, the notion of canon is a fallacy. [...] Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 exist as tens of thousands of overlapping realities in the imaginations of games developers, writers, readers and gamers. None of those interpretations is wrong."
-- http://mechanicalhamster.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/jumping-the-fence/

Well, yes and no. I can't just import anything I want into 40K, and interpret anything I want, however I want. My Little Pony Marines, cross-universe battles between Star Wars and the Imperium, and other such nonsense isn't 'real' 40K.

I'm a big Batman fan. But I don't like all of the Batman stuff. Like him having a son with Talia, for example. But the Batman authors explain it away by saying "It's all true, but how you rationalise it is up to you. After all, you're just reading someone else's interpretation of the 'facts'. So if it doesn't match what you like, you can just imagine that interpretation to be wrong".

I think that's what Gav was getting at. Not that 'anything goes' but that each person has the opportunity to filter the presented facts in their own way.

If one were to take the 'there is no canon' claim to it's logical extreme, I could insist that the 12 High Lords of Terra are all hyper-intelligent Squirrels. And I'd b right.

So all that's left for us to discuss is which of our interpretations make the most sense, most closely adhere to the presented facts, and are the coolest.

I guess so, yeah. Even in that blog, Gav still referred to "established facts", which I take as some sort of groundwork that just has to be present everywhere: there always has to be a God-Emperor, the Space Marines are genetically engineered warrior monks, demons come from the warp, etc. Let's not forget that even in the licensed material, not every story gets accepted. Although this may depend heavily on the individual editor, this alone suggests that the outsourced material is definitively intended to hit the general "look and feel of the 41st millennium". Black Library putting some of its older novels into a special "Heretic Tomes" category alludes to this, too.

So it seems as if it's just when it comes to the details, the fine print of the setting, that the authors are allowed a considerable degree of liberty, which then results in all those conflicts that make for so much heated debate over here. Aaron Dembski-Bowden's posts in the linked thread were also very informative, I think. The more insider information we get on how the franchise works, the better we can understand and discuss it.

Of course, the issue is still that we all have our own interpretation of how things "have" to work, shaped by the unique combination of sources we grew up with.

I probably should be more careful/respectful when it comes to interpretations derived from books other than those from GW, but I am only human and, I think, often subconsciously take the position of GW codices being held in higher regard for granted just because they are the origin and they (by introducing new editions) determine how it goes on. The "alpha and the omega", if you so will. They are not "more right" or "more accurate" than anything else, but I think I may often forget this fact in the midst of particularly interesting fluff debates. Call it my version of Righteous Zeal.

GW's attitude toward canon is not a progressive artistic experiment regarding the literary device of continuity. Neither is it a way of respecting fan creativity. It is wholly and solely a practical consideration: "the studio" can add, erase, or edit anything -- including some quite radical changes, as per the new Necron dex -- without damaging the existing "integrity" of the IP. And before anyone thinks this is genius (looking at you, Mr. Dembski-Bowden!), please remember that the damage is avoided by never allowing for that integrity in the first place. The "established facts" that Gav Thorpe talks about are just enduring components of brand identity. So as I said, paraphrasing Mr. Thorpe, we're stuck with 40k existing wherever it exists: in codices, in FW supplements, in novels, in RPGs, in video games, in a CGI movie, etc, etc, etc. The act of picking and choosing from this yields something separate from it: a fan's personal interpretation.

Kaldor is completely right about what we're attempting to do here: comparing and contrasting our various personal interpretations to determine what makes the most sense against the published work, which make up all of the "established facts." I wouldn't get to hung up on that phrase, either. Perhaps the red armor of the Blood Angels is really just some half-remembered scrap of Imperial propaganda to disguise the actions of some Khorne-worshipping Space Marines. "Established facts" are not even necessarily "facts."