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.

Psienesis wrote:
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.

You know what, you are correct. I double checked and in theory an absolute monarch would have absolute, totalitarian control. A feudal system of government is different than an absolute monarchy. There are no vassals in an absolute monarchy. In practice, an absolute monarchy has never existed.

That being said, the Imperium is NOT an absolute monarchy, lacking an absolute monarchy. Oh, it's one in theory, with the Emperor as absolute monarch, but in practice it is a feudal government, with immutable feudal agreements being the "absolute laws" supposedly set down by the Emperor.

But at this point no one can take the power of an absolute monarch, no one faction can truly claim to speak for the Emperor. The Emperor granted rights of the AdMech, Inquisition, High Lords, Astartes, local governors, Rogue Traders, etc. act as a feudal constitution.

They are in practice a feudal society, not an absolute monarchy or totalitarian dictatorship.

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.

The Imperium has plenty of legal responsibilities. Their vassal planets can legally call upon the Imperium for protection, communication, travel, and mediation, and has rights against Imperial tampering with local politics.

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.

Again, the vassal planets have plenty of legal rights they can and do the expect the Imperium to fulfill.

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.

Yes, because you have violated your portion of the vassal agreement, thus waving your rights and inviting reprisals and replacement.

No, they aren't. A Space Marine Chapter that refuses the orders of the High Lords are Renegades. Often becoming declared Excommunicatus Traitorus.

Totally incorrect, the High Lords have NO authority to command the Adeptas Astartes. The Astartes engages in war at the request of the High Lords and the military at their discretion. While there is some fuzzyness around how much control the Inquisition has over the Astartes (the Inquisition believing they can command them, the Astartes believing they cannot, and both sides settling on polite compromise) there is no question that the Astartes are independent of the High Lords and Imperial military structure. The Ad-Mech and Rogue traders share similar levels of autonomy.

M

uch like the inquisition 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.

I agree with almost everything in this paragraph. And this is the core of the Imperial feudal system. All the groups have rights granted by their "absolute monarch" the Emperor. And so no one group can excursive total control over the Imperium, or ignore the rights of the others, as in violating the rule of their "absolute monarch", they are risking losing their own authority. The High Lords cannot simply "fire" a local governor, as that violates their rights as a vassal. The must demonstrate that they have violated their vassal agreement, either through heresy or by not paying their tithes.

Manchu wrote: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.

No, it's not. It isn't totalitarian if there isn't a single group in control.

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.

My apologies, the statement was made by someone else and I attributed it to you.

As I stated earlier, an Inquisitor cannot simply execute whoever they wish, as that would be over reaching their authority and they would thus be risking said authority. They must always frame their actions as being in the pursuit of heresy. While that is admittedly a fairly easy limit to sidestep, were it ever to appear that an inquisitor WAS simply acting is such a way they would lose the validity of their authority, and quickly find themselves being hunted down and unable to command anyone.

I think the best we're going to do is agreeing that the Imperium is feudal in practice. There is no "bill of rights" or other law that guarantees the rights of vassals but the far flung nature of the Imperium means that no one is in direct top-down control of everything. This is indeed the real world horror of totalitarian governments.

Manchu wrote: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.

You are over stating inquisitorial authority. They have broad authority in the persecution of heresy, but that is it's limit. An inquisitor has no legal right to declare himself provisional head of the planets resources if it is not in the persecution of heresy, nor has he any right to maintain such control any longer than is necessary for the prosecution of his duty.

Again, it's an easy thing to side-step, once or twice. But as soon as it becomes apparent that an inquisitor is willingly and knowingly overstepping his authority, that authority vanishes in a puff of smoke. Their authority is intrinsically tied to their feudal obligations. Violating those feudal agreements voids the authority of the inquisitor.

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

Again, this is correct in any given situation, on the micro scale, but not on the macro scale. Their authority is derived from the feudal system. If they obviously violate the bounds of their authority (persecuting heresy) they will quickly HAVE no authority. Perception is EVERYTHING for the inquisition.

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.

Inquisitors can as a matter of law commandeer all the resources of a planet to pursue their goals, even up to making demands on the High Lords of Terra. Few things are more directly established in the fluff. Whether they can get away with it as a matter of circumstances is a separate matter that has nothing to do with laws and rights.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

It is not unheard of for Astartes and Rogue Traders to declare Inquisitors heretics and dispose of them.

Could you give some examples? Just on the face of it, this is wrong. The Inquisition is not a division of Adpetus Terra. No part of Adeptus Terra, including the High Lords, have any authority whatsoever over the Inquisition.

The Inquisition, one of the most powerful institutions in the Imperium, is subject to its own regulation. If an Inquisitor goes down to a planet, flahes his/her rosette to the governor and says 'I'm in charge of this planet now' and does nothing with that control that would seem to be in aid of an investigation into heresy, then other Inquisitors will notice and go kick their arse.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:

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.

What "crazy fluff stories" would that be? Does not seem to conform to the Codex material I've been reading.

riplikash wrote: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.

Not really. This, too, is an area where the Ministorum is active. It is the Imperial Church, not the locals, who engage in twisting local belief into "Imperial shape". It's the Sisters Sabine and the Imperium's Confessors who are enforcing the new faith, often at gunpoint.

The Imperium doesn't enforce a complete swap, because it is easier to simply direct the locals' faith into a new direction - just like what Christianity has done in the real world. Doesn't make some of its activities in the middle ages less oppressive, though. If you are argueing that the Imperium allows and provides for a lot of leeway in how a world worships the Emperor, then you'd be right. Yet this does not make the activities of its clergy less imperious. As a local, you either take the compromise the Confessor is offering you, or you are branded a heretic and dealt with, harshly.

riplikash wrote:I don't think you understand how swearing fealty works. The vassal has rights and responsibilities, just as the lord does.

I don't think you understand how swearing fealty works. The rights and responsibilities differ from regime to regime, and in the case of the Imperium, the noble's right is to be allowed administration of an entire world in the name of the God-Emperor, and as he sees fit, as long as the Imperium's demands are fulfilled. They do not include immunity from the High Lords' demands or even whims, much less an Inquisitor's scrutiny.

Ultimately, the governor is governing an Imperial world. The planet belongs to the Emperor, with the governor merely being His appointed agent. The Emperor as represented by certain servants may very well appoint another one at any time, if deemed necessary.

Earth's own history is full of mad Kings, Tzars and Emperors pissing on their nobles. Any idea that a local governor would enjoy some sort of immunity from the central government on Terra would ultimately undermine the idea of the God-Emperor being the Master of All Mankind. All of Mankind includes the petty lord from agriworld #17945.

Let's keep in mind that the feudal system as well as vassalage are not a solid set of rules but have changed and evolved over time, depending on the era and country you are looking at. Saying "this guy is a vassal so the High Lords can't touch him" is, put simply, a claim constructed out of thin air, and one I deem in conflict with how the Imperium has been described to us, at least if we are going by studio sources.

riplikash wrote: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.

And do you have an example of this?

riplikash wrote:Spiritually speaking, yes. The same way technically God was the head of all real world states during the middle ages.

No, this is a flawed comparison. The Pope as the Christian God's highest representative over all "real world states" never had as much power as the Imperium's High Lords do.
Which, by the way, include an Inquisitor.

riplikash wrote: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?

The God-Emperor, obviously.

riplikash wrote: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.

This is not quite true. The Space Marine fiefs are sattelite states established by the Emperor, Rogue Traders owe loyalty to either the Emperor or one of his appointed servants (individually depending on a Rogue Trader's writ), and the Inquisition is networked with the Senate by virtue of occupying one of its seats. The Imperium "lacks" direct control over local governors because it is easier for the IoM to lean back and simply impose a list of basic demands on its territories to be fulfilled by the appointed governor.

riplikash wrote:The Imperium is also very factional within itself. There is no unified party controlling things, but many disperate parties and organizations vying for control.

The unified party would be the High Lords and the God-Emperor. The scheming happens largely because the Imperium is so vast that somewhere down the chain individual opinions clash with each other. In the truly grand scheme of things, this has happened only twice during the history of the IoM: during the Horus Heresy and the Age of Apostasy.

Also, I think you are applying the description in a wrong way. Exclusion of potential challengers refers not to one Adeptus working against another, but to the Imperium as a regime (which includes all its Adepta) being threatened by forces demanding a change. Look at China, for example - just because you have different political movements scheming against each other within the same government does not make said government as a whole any less authoritarian when it comes to dealing with "outsiders" (elements not part of the regime).

riplikash wrote:The Imperium cannot, it has to follow it's own feudal laws, which respect the rights of their vassal lords.

In short: source?

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.

Or maybe they just declare them heretics first because otherwise they simply have no reason to do anything against them.

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

Maybe. But the Badab war is an extreme example. What about when the Dark Angels have just packed their toys up and went home in order to chase after rumors of Fallen?

The Space Marines enjoy quite a bit of freedom. Sure, refusing to tithe gene seed over and over, and secretly amassing forces, and ultimately falling to Chaos will get your chapter censured. Deciding to skip this war because you've decided you have better things to do? Not so much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lynata wrote:

Veteran Sergeant wrote:

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.

What "crazy fluff stories" would that be? Does not seem to conform to the Codex material I've been reading.

Not reading enough then.

There is a wealth of material out there that suggest, imply, or even outright demonstrate, that the Ecclessiarchy's control is nominal, at best, on many worlds. Memorizing Codex: SoB and Witch Hunters isn't going to really help you out there since it's very faction focused.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:The Space Marines enjoy quite a bit of freedom. Sure, refusing to tithe gene seed over and over, and secretly amassing forces, and ultimately falling to Chaos will get your chapter censured. Deciding to skip this war because you've decided you have better things to do? Not so much.

Actually, there is a battle narrative in the 3E WH Codex which addresses exactly this as a potential reason for why WH/SoB would fight Space Marines.

It was something like: "This Chapter refused to respond to a call to arms, and as a result the Imperium lost a world. Go attack them."

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Not reading enough then.
There is a wealth of material out there that suggest, imply, or even outright demonstrate, that the Ecclessiarchy's control is nominal, at best, on many worlds. Memorizing Codex: SoB and Witch Hunters isn't going to really help you out there since it's very faction focused.

Not a helpful answer.

I know there's a lot of silly novels out there claiming all sorts of things, doesn't mean I put them on the same pedestal as proper studio fluff.

I'm talking about studio fluff. Blurbs from various codex books, rulebooks, etc. You forget, my background in this game goes back to the early 90s. I have print copies of most books dating back to 1987's Rogue Trader boxed up. I'd only ever read like three or four novels prior the release of the HH series just because the quality was always so inconsistent. A lot of little vignettes and other stories depict a backwards Imperium, mired in administrative garbage, where the average Imperial citizen's exposure, or even understanding, of the Imperium and the Imperial Cult, is minimal. The Ecclessiarchy is a bloated, pervasive modicum of control for the pressed hive cities and other industrialized worlds, but heck, the entire game of Necromunda and all of its fluff proves that the influence of the Imperial Cult varies greatly. But considering there are planets declared as shrine worlds and others with other designation alone proves the idea that the Ecclessiarchy's control varies greatly. They'd not be so jealous of their control if they had it. The only factions that obsess so much over what they are in charge of are the ones who are constantly worried that they might not be.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:The Ecclessiarchy is a bloated, pervasive modicum of control for the pressed hive cities and other industrialized worlds, but heck, the entire game of Necromunda and all of its fluff proves that the influence of the Imperial Cult varies greatly. But considering there are planets declared as shrine worlds and others with other designation alone proves the idea that the Ecclessiarchy's control varies greatly. They'd not be so jealous of their control if they had it. The only factions that obsess so much over what they are in charge of are the ones who are constantly worried that they might not be.

I think we're talking past each other. Once again, I never referred to any territories or forces (as all of this is part of the inter-Adepta struggle between various Imperial organisations), I am referring to the Ecclesiarch's influence over the hearts and minds of people. Regardless of how their local interpretation of the faith looks in detail, the masses are going to listen to their local Confessor, who in turn listens to the Bishop, who in turn listens to the Ecclesiarch.

I too have print copies of various older books, and if you give me some time until I get back home I think I can quote from an article from an older White Dwarf that dealt with the Ecclesiarchy vs some Genestealer cult. It was just a set of 3-4 missions, but also came with some very cool background on the Ministorum's role for the average local populace.

Yes, the extent of this role will vary depending on the planet (compare Shrine World to some random Agrifarmplanet), but I claim it would be wrong to say that the Ecclesiarchy is completely without influence anywhere. As you yourself stated, the Ministorum is pervasive. And in times of true need, Ecclesiarchal control can increase rather quickly simply by virtue of the local clergy being able to call on the resources and connections of the larger body. Something the governor cannot, unless he is BFF with some Inquisitor or another influential Imperial body.

I said they don't have total control. When you said "The Imperial Church does not have a problem with control over the local populace.", what else is it supposed to imply other than a belief that the Ecclessiarchy does indeed have total control?

They are pervasive in some places. But like everything else in the Imperium, it's control is only limited to where its agents can exert control. The existence of Chaos Cults, Genestealer Cults, tech cults, (insert whatever) cults shows that they can't, and don't have anywhere near total control. On some worlds, they might be able to exert more influence, but human nature has shown nothing but a resistance to control measures. If modern Western society has shrugged off the influence of the Catholic in the span of a few hundred years (heck, the entire time that Rome was able to exert influence was only just over a thousand years total), imagine what ten thousand does. You can influence a large chunk of a docile population through various indoctrination and programming techniques, especially if they are intertwined with jingoistic propaganda like the Imperium has. But there will always be non-believers, and groups that are going to only pay lip service to the idea in order to be left alone (either consciously, or simply because that's how they've always done it).

Manchu wrote:Inquisitors can as a matter of law commandeer all the resources of a planet to pursue their goals, even up to making demands on the High Lords of Terra. Few things are more directly established in the fluff. Whether they can get away with it as a matter of circumstances is a separate matter that has nothing to do with laws and rights.

I never disagreed with this, in fact I pointed it out several times. They can commandeer any resources in the pursuit of heresy. But it must be in the pursuit of heresy. It is admittadly vast authority. But if were to ever become that an Inquisitor was acting outside of that scope e.g. attempting to rule, indulging in their own pleasures, using their power to acquire personal wealth and power, they lose the very foundation of their authority.

Could you give some examples? Just on the face of it, this is wrong. The Inquisition is not a division of Adpetus Terra. No part of Adeptus Terra, including the High Lords, have any authority whatsoever over the Inquisition.

Don't have my codecii here, but the current SM codex talks claims that astartes chapters consider themselves outside of inquisitorial authority, and the Space Wolf codex gives several examples. The FFG Rogue Trader rulebook claims that Rogue Traders are not under inquisitorial authority, and indeed when outside the Imperium they fulfill a similar role, and with similar authority. In contrast inquisitorial codecii have claimed the opposite. In the end they all agree that a wise inquisitor/chapter master/rogue trader just treats their opposites with respect and avoid the issue. Inquisitors ask SM politely, SM politely do what they say in most circumstances.

Not really. This, too, is an area where the Ministorum is active. It is the Imperial Church, not the locals, who engage in twisting local belief into "Imperial shape". It's the Sisters Sabine and the Imperium's Confessors who are enforcing the new faith, often at gunpoint.

Sometimes, not always. Entire missionary fleets are sent out just to catalogue existing Imperial cults. While sometimes the Sisters Sabine enforce new face, it is far more common for new worlds to integrate the tenets of the Imperial cult into their existing religious framework.

Even on established worlds new Imperial cults and faiths crop up all the time. The Ecclesiarchy is not a monolithic, unified organization like the Catholic church. It is more like Christianity in general, but with a very loose hierarchy.

If you are argueing that the Imperium allows and provides for a lot of leeway in how a world worships the Emperor, then you'd be right. Yet this does not make the activities of its clergy less imperious. As a local, you either take the compromise the Confessor is offering you, or you are branded a heretic and dealt with, harshly.

Right, that is basically what I'm saying. Worshipping the Emperor is not optional. But beyond that the Imperium is very hands off.

I don't think you understand how swearing fealty works. The rights and responsibilities differ from regime to regime, and in the case of the Imperium, the noble's right is to be allowed administration of an entire world in the name of the God-Emperor, and as he sees fit, as long as the Imperium's demands are fulfilled.

Yes, that is basically what I'm saying.

They do not include immunity from the High Lords' demands or even whims,

This I do not agree with. The High Lords must respect the rights of their vassals, the local governors.

much less an Inquisitor's scrutiny.

I agree here too. As you said, vassal rights vary from regime to regime. Bowing to inquisitorial scrutiny is part of an Imperial vassals responsibilities. That doesn't mean the High Lords can do as they please.

Ultimately, the governor is governing an Imperial world. The planet belongs to the Emperor, with the governor merely being His appointed agent. The Emperor as represented by certain servants may very well appoint another one at any time, if deemed necessary.

Yes, that is technically true. But the Emperor is not doing any appointing or implementing any new laws. The laws and rights set down might as well be a constitution, because there are none with the authority to change them unilaterally. Within the current framework, vassals have rights that the High Lords cannot dismiss.

Earth's own history is full of mad Kings, Tzars and Emperors pissing on their nobles. Any idea that a local governor would enjoy some sort of immunity from the central government on Terra would ultimately undermine the idea of the God-Emperor being the Master of All Mankind. All of Mankind includes the petty lord from agriworld #17945.

And any idea that a High Lord could summarily trample on the rights of their vassals that the Emperor set forth likewise undermines the idea of the God Emperor being the Master of All Mankind. The "absolute monarch" is inactive. His theoretical ability to rule is outside of the political realities of the Imperium. It is in all the various factions best interests to maintain the status quo.

Sure, a High Lord could CLAIM "Oh, this is what the Emperor wants, and I speak for the Emperor", but the Inquisition, the Astartes, the AdMech, the Rogue Traders, and any number of other groups would see a High Lord voiding the "Emperor decreed" rights of their vassals as a threat to their own authority, and proceed to declare them a heretic.

Similarly, an Inquisitor overstepping the bounds of their authority would bring similar negative attention. There are many groups that "act in the name of the Emperor", and NONE of them want another group to start overstepping its bounds.

riplikash wrote: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.

And do you have an example of this?

The Imperial Armour books discuss several individuals aspiring to gather enough support to lead a crusade, as does several of the histories and modules in DH (not your favorite source, I know).

Almost every crusade description I've seen discusses how charismatic individuals organize them via diplomacy, charisma, and political favors.

riplikash wrote:Spiritually speaking, yes. The same way technically God was the head of all real world states during the middle ages.

No, this is a flawed comparison. The Pope as the Christian God's highest representative over all "real world states" never had as much power as the Imperium's High Lords do.
Which, by the way, include an Inquisitor.

I'm comparing God to The Emperor, not the High Lords. The High Lords do not act as an absolute monarch, or even as a unified group. It is composed of representatives of numerous factions with their own agendas.

If the High Lords acted as absolute monarchs they could not be eliminated by the Inquisition or the Assassitorum. They could not be bullied by the AdMech, the Navis Nobilis, or the Ecclesiarchy. They could not be ignored by the Ultramarines, the Space Wolves, or the Rogue Traders.

They are not the absolute rulers of the Imperium.

riplikash wrote: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?

The God-Emperor, obviously.

Right, so you are admitting there is no ACTUAL absolute monarch. The Emperor rules the Imperium about as much as Yahweh ruled medieval Europe. Everyone will just to do what he says, as soon as he bothers to say something.

This is not quite true. The Space Marine fiefs are sattelite states established by the Emperor, Rogue Traders owe loyalty to either the Emperor or one of his appointed servants (individually depending on a Rogue Trader's writ), and the Inquisition is networked with the Senate by virtue of occupying one of its seats. The Imperium "lacks" direct control over local governors because it is easier for the IoM to lean back and simply impose a list of basic demands on its territories to be fulfilled by the appointed governor.

Any group that answers to "the Emperor" is effectively independent. All of these groups have a vested interest in maintaining the current set of rights and privileges, which includes those granted to local governors.

The unified party would be the High Lords and the God-Emperor. The scheming happens largely because the Imperium is so vast that somewhere down the chain individual opinions clash with each other. In the truly grand scheme of things, this has happened only twice during the history of the IoM: during the Horus Heresy and the Age of Apostasy.

So the totalitarian ruler of the Imperium is the corpse who hasn't done anything in 10k years and the group of non-unified representatives of disperate organizations all serving their own interests, who are unable to command vast portions of the Imperium?

Also, I think you are applying the description in a wrong way. Exclusion of potential challengers refers not to one Adeptus working against another, but to the Imperium as a regime (which includes all its Adepta) being threatened by forces demanding a change. Look at China, for example - just because you have different political movements scheming against each other within the same government does not make said government as a whole any less authoritarian when it comes to dealing with "outsiders" (elements not part of the regime).

By that definition all countries are totalitarian. No, I just can't buy it. There are two many points of authoritarian rulership that don't mesh with how the Imperium works. There is no one group that controls the Imperium.

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.

Or maybe they just declare them heretics first because otherwise they simply have no reason to do anything against them.

Exactly. No excuse, no authority. Their authority comes in the persecution of heresy. When an Inquisitor doesn't like a SM chapter they declare them heretics, as that is where their authority lies.

Also, the classification of a world as a Shrine World doesn't really determine who rules the planet or its relative value in the Imperium as a whole, but simply a demarcation that signifies that this planet is occupied by Mankind for the purposes of honoring an Imperial Saint.

Many Shrine Worlds, in fact, are otherwise valueless, and would be of no interest to anyone, at all, except for the fact that they, say, carved a mountain into a twenty-mile-tall statue of Saint Bob, Patron Saint of Bulldadaist Endeavors.

This I do not agree with. The High Lords must respect the rights of their vassals, the local governors.

The local governor has no rights. His power extends from the charter granted unto him by the High Lords, in the name of the God-Emperor.

So the totalitarian ruler of the Imperium is the corpse who hasn't done anything in 10k years and the group of non-unified representatives of disperate organizations all serving their own interests, who are unable to command vast portions of the Imperium?

That is the horror of such a totalitarian system... the system itself is what establishes its total control, not an actual individual that might, if he could be but reached, reasoned with, bargained with, threatened or simply removed. If a local Planetary Governor pisses off the wrong Inquisitor, that Inquisitor can order the death of his entire world, feth his "vassal rights". Here's the thing... there's no hard-coded list of what constitutes "heresy". While there certainly are things that are *definitely* heretical, there's no limit to what an Inquisitor, or a member of the Ecclesiarchy, can declare as heretical. On some worlds, the possession and use of vox-beads are akin to the vilest sorcery. An Inquisitor from such a world has just as much right to shoot you in the head as if you were summoning daemons, because his authority in the pursuit of the heretical, the alien and the daemonic is absolute. This is one reason why Inquisitors fight amongst each other, incidentally.

By that definition all countries are totalitarian. No, I just can't buy it. There are two many points of authoritarian rulership that don't mesh with how the Imperium works. There is no one group that controls the Imperium.

Having dissent in a country doesn't make a country, or its government, totalitarian. How it responds to that dissent is a good indicator of whether a regime is totalitarian. In the US, we have plenty of dissent, that's part of being a democratic republic. In China, they run over dissenters with tanks. That's totalitarian.

riplikash wrote: But if were to ever become that an Inquisitor was acting outside of that scope e.g. attempting to rule, indulging in their own pleasures, using their power to acquire personal wealth and power, they lose the very foundation of their authority.

All that means is that the Inquisitors have a superior. That superior is the Emperor, however, not planetary governors, Space Marine chapter masters, Rogue Traders, etc. If an Inquisitor says "I demand full command of your PDF to root out the heretics" a planetary governor cannot reply with "no, there is no heresy." I mean, he literally can say that. But he will get a plasma blast in the kisser.

Don't have my codecii here, but the current SM codex talks claims that astartes chapters consider themselves outside of inquisitorial authority, and the Space Wolf codex gives several examples.

The SW think a lot of wrong things. In fact, they were proven wrong on this account when they demanded that the Inquisition spare the fighting men of Armageddon. No dice, puppies. The Inquisition is understandably concerned about the SW given that the SW shoot at their fleets when they try to visit Fenris. The fact that the Inquisition is not willing to just stamp out the SW doesn't mean the SW have rights against the Inquisition. It just means the Inquisition thinks such a battle will cost more than it's worth.

The FFG Rogue Trader rulebook claims that Rogue Traders are not under inquisitorial authority, and indeed when outside the Imperium they fulfill a similar role, and with similar authority.

The Warrant of Trade is an ambiguous thing. As Lynata pointed out, there are various descriptions of them and they seem to be pretty different from example to example. In any case, the authority behind them comes in the best circumstances from the Emperor himself. In other words, all power comes from above (except at the top). If Rogue Traders are of equal authority to Inquisitors (that's extraordinarily debatable), they're only equals as subordinates to the Emperor.

In the end they all agree that a wise inquisitor/chapter master/rogue trader just treats their opposites with respect and avoid the issue.

Again, this has nothing at all to do with rights and laws.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I notice that your definition of authority seems to have to do with completely arbitrary power. I can assure you, this is exactly what the Emperor wields. If the Emperor says "blow up this planet" you do it without asking why. The fact that his billions upon billions of servants don't all enjoy this same authority has nothing to do with anyone in the Imperium having rights.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

riplikash wrote:So the totalitarian ruler of the Imperium is the corpse who hasn't done anything in 10k years

Careful, that's heresy. Here comes the Inquisition ...

Manchu wrote:All that means is that the Inquisitors have a superior. That superior is the Emperor, however, not planetary governors, Space Marine chapter masters, Rogue Traders, etc. If an Inquisitor says "I demand full command of your PDF to root out the heretics" a planetary governor cannot reply with "no, there is no heresy." I mean, he literally can say that. But he will get a plasma blast in the kisser.

I'm not really sure what your contradicting here. I never said any of those others where the Inquisitors superior, just that the inquisitors authority isn't total and absolute as some claim. An inquisitor has to work within his/her legal framework. Demanding command of the local PDF to root out heretics is fully within their legal rights, as I have noted many times. But just taking command of a word or resources for political power or personal gain are outside their authority.

When your "superior" is a corpse that doesn't do anything, he isn't your superior.

When your absolute monarch is a corpse that doesn't do anything he isn't an absolute monarch.

The SW think a lot of wrong things. In fact, they were proven wrong on this account when they demanded that the Inquisition spare the fighting men of Armageddon. No dice, puppies. The Inquisition is understandably concerned about the SW given that the SW shoot at their fleets when they try to visit Fenris. The fact that the Inquisition is not willing to just stamp out the SW doesn't mean the SW have rights against the Inquisition. It just means the Inquisition thinks such a battle will cost more than it's worth.

You kind of ignored most of my point to harp on the Space Wolves. The point is, numerous chapters (as I noted, the SM codex says the same thing) feel they are not under the control of the inquisition, and the inquisition largely doesn't challenge the sentiment, instead acting in a courteous manner and requesting aid only when necessary, and doing favors for chapters that aid them. This is a key part of SM lore.

As for the inquisition not sparing the fighting men at the demand of the SW, well, that wasn't within the rights of the SW. The Inquisition was fully within its authority to act in that way.

The Warrant of Trade is an ambiguous thing. As Lynata pointed out, there are various descriptions of them and they seem to be pretty different from example to example. In any case, the authority behind them comes in the best circumstances from the Emperor himself. In other words, all power comes from above (except at the top).

Not disagreeing here. But the Emperor does nothing, he isn't an active part of the government. The fact that there are numerous groups that rank just below the Emperor and control the Imperium, and those groups cannot consistently and reliably give orders to one another, and the Emperor is politically a non-existant entity means there is NO single, unified authority that controls the Imperium and work to keep each other in check. It is a dispersed government.

If Rogue Traders are of equal authority to Inquisitors (that's extraordinarily debatable),

They have the authority to act unilaterally, as they see fit, when acting to expand the influence of the Imperium. That is the exact same authority as the Inquisitors.

they're only equals as subordinates to the Emperor.

I fully agree. And the Emperor is a non-entity, politically speaking. So just like in the US you have multiple ruling groups that hold one another in check, each with their own rights an responsibilities. There is no single ruling body.

In the end they all agree that a wise inquisitor/chapter master/rogue trader just treats their opposites with respect and avoid the issue.

Again, this has nothing at all to do with rights and laws.

Yes, it does.The Inquisitor does not have the right to absolute control over various groups. Those groups have their own rights the inquisitor cannot ignore.

An inquisitor could not attack even a weak SM chapter without bringing up the legal justification of heresy, otherwise other Imperial groups (including other inquisitors) would turn on them and their authority would vanish.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Also, I notice that your definition of authority seems to have to do with completely arbitrary power.

No, my definition of authority is that people recognize someone as having the right to command them in a given way. A police officer has the authority to pull someone over and write a ticket because he is recognized as having such. Once the police officer violates the social contract that grants him authority, say by overstepping the bounds of his authority too many times, he suddenly loses that recognition as an authority figure, and can't order anyone to do anything.

Inquisitors have vast authority at their disposal in the enacting of their duties. But if they violate the social contract that grants them that authority, the authority disappears. Authority can only exist within the confines of the social contract that grants it.

I can assure you, this is exactly what the Emperor wields. If the Emperor says "blow up this planet" you do it without asking why. The fact that his billions upon billions of servants don't all enjoy this same authority has nothing to do with anyone in the Imperium having rights.

The Emperor is a political non-entity. He hasn't done anything in 10k years, and isn't going to do anything in the near future. Practically speaking, he is not the head of government, as he does not govern, and hasn't done so for millennia.

He is just as much the head of the Imperium as God was the head of medieval Europe, i.e. in name only. The theoretical power he wields is simply not pertinent to the discussion of the political realities of the Imperium. The laws the Imperium claims he set down, e.g. the rights and responsibilities of the adeptas, inquisition, local governors, Rogue Traders, etc. effectively act as a feudal constitution, setting down the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of everyone involved.

Sure, theoretically as an absolute monarch he could change those at a whim. Except, you know, corpses don't talk.

The Imperium is an absolute monarchy under the Emperor on name only.

Simply put, it doesn't matter what SM (or any other division of Adeptus Terra) "feel." All other things being equal, Inquisitors are free to order any SM around at any time. The condition of "there being heresy" is meaningless as Inquisitors are the final word on what is and isn't heresy (in the absence of the Emperor weighing in).

The point of bringing up the Inquisition in the first place is to show that the absolute authority of the Emperor, regardless of the particular instance of its invocation, is the basis for all other legitimacy. Power in the Imperium is only a matter of top to bottom. There is no legitimacy whatsoever that comes from the bottom to the top. Aside from showing situations where the Adeptus Terra or Inquisition simply don't care about or don't want to commit resources to, you haven't been able to and will never be able to show an example of what rights lower rungs on the hierarchy have against higher rungs. This is because they have none. The penultimate example is the Inquisition. The ultimate example is the Emperor himself.


And, TBH, you don't know if he's dead or not. None of us do. Last we heard, he was able to hold an audience with the SoB during the Age of Apostasy. But him being alive or dead or whatever is not the point. All authority comes from the Golden Throne. There is no authority within the Imperium that can strive against it. Any claim against this authority is the same thing as decalring oneself a heretic and a traitor. If the Throne of Terra, by whatever means, wished to scrutinize any aspect of the Imperium, right down to littering in a hive world at the edge of Segmentum Pacificus, it could do so and there is no authority in the Imperium that could gainsay it. That is totalitarianism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

riplikash wrote:A police officer has the authority to pull someone over and write a ticket because he is recognized as having such.

That is only the case in a non-totalitarian state. In a totalitarian state, like the Imperium, recognizing someone else's power is not a perquisite to them having it as a matter of law. They have that authority because, somehow or another, it was delegated down to them from the Golden Throne. Anyone who doesn't recognize the authority is an ipso facto traitor and heretic, i.e., someone with no legitimacy whatsoever in society. That is the basic dynamic of a totalitarian society: all legitimacy comes from some centralized, absolute "top" of the hierarchy which has no legal limitation whatsoever.

Manchu wrote:Simply put, it doesn't matter what SM (or any other division of Adeptus Terra) "feel." All other things being equal, Inquisitors are free to order any SM around at any time. The condition of "there being heresy" is meaningless as Inquisitors are the final word on what is and isn't heresy.

The point of bringing up the Inquisition in the first place is to show that the absolute authority of the Emperor, regardless of the particular instance of its invocation, is the basis for all other legitimacy. Power in the Imperium is only a matter of top to bottom. There is no legitimacy whatsoever that comes from the bottom to the top. Aside from showing situations that the Adeptus Terra or Inquisition simply don't care about or don't want to commit resources to, you haven't been able to and will never be able to show an example of what rights lower rungs on the hierarchy have against higher rungs. This is because they have none. The penultimate example is the Inquisition. The ultimate example is the Emperor himself.


And, TBH, you don't know if he's dead or not. None of us do. Last we heard, he was able to hold an audience with the SoB during the Age of Apostasy. But him being alive or dead or whatever is not the point. All authority comes from the Golden Throne. There is no authority within the Imperium that can strive against it. Any claim against this authority is the same thing as decalring oneself a heretic and a traitor. If the Throne of Terra, by whatever means, wished to scrutinize any aspect of the Imperium, right down to littering in a hive world at the edge of Segmentum Pacificus, it could do so and there is no authority in the Imperium that could gainsay it. That is totalitarianism.

I don't disagree that the theoretical power structure of the Imperium is totalitarian. What I disagree with is that in it is totalitarian in any realistic sense of the word. You are correct that the Emperor is the ultimate authority, and that is exactly what limits any other group from having totalitarian authority. The Emperor set the Astartes, Rogue Traders, AdMech, and other groups outside of the authority of the inquisition, at least according to many of the histories and traditions of the Imperium. The Emperor gave them rights. The Inquisition does not have the authority to countermand the Emperor, and thus cannot act against those rights and privileges he set forth without undermining the source of their own power. And since he isn't actively governing, those rights are concrete for the time being.

Likewise, the Emperor declared how vassal-ship would work: pay the tithe, protect your world, do what the inquisition says when they are rooting out heresy, avoid heresy, and the Imperium will leave you alone to govern yourselves. (and obviously Emperor worship was later added). That is what current history believes is the decree of the God Emperor, master of mankind. The High Lords have not the authority to countermand that, for to go against the word of the Emperor is to invalidate their own authority, granted them by the world of the Emperor. If they want to oust an annoying governor they act within the bounds he set forth and declare the governor a heretic, or show that he didn't pay his tithe.

As for it not being about what the various groups feel or believe, I totally disagree. It DOES matter what they "feel". If ALL the adeptas didn't "feel" the inquisition had authority over them, the inquisition would have NO authority. Authority is ALL about perception. If people don't believe the Inquisition has authority over them, the inquisition has no authority over them. You have rights only so long as you work within a framework that grants you rights. If the masses don't believe the Inquisition can command the Astartes (which many do), and the Astartes don't believe it (which all do), and the military doesn't believe the Inquisition can command them (which many do), then they can't command them. The Inquisition don't declare the Ultramarines, Black Templar, or Space Wolves excommunicatus because they aren't sure they could successfully prosecute such a claim. Even were they successful, they would invalidate their authority in the eyes of many and caused massive civil strife.

As for him being dead, my point was he is effectively a corpse, as far as the politics of the Imperium are concerned. I'm not in the "he's really a corpse" camp myself, but politically speaking, he might as well be. He isn't active in Imperial politics, and the last time there is even a legend of him being involved is 4k years ago.

Again, I don't disagree that the Emperor himself has the power of an absolute monarch. But he's not exercising it. He may not even be ABLE to exercise it. The last thing he did was set down how the various groups can interact with each other, and how far their authority extends. In his absence, the Imperium must continue to follow those rules, and until he gets involved again, those rules do not allow for totalitarian rule by any of the currently active political entities within the Imperium.

I guess if all the people in China stopped believing that the government had power over them then China wouldn't be a totalitarian regime? Er, no. Or rather, yes, but not in any meaningful sense. Same with the Imperium.

Also, we already agree that the Imeprium is feudalistic in practice. But even so, no one can appeal to any rights. They appeal instead to honor -- and bolters.

Manchu wrote:That is only the case in a non-totalitarian state. In a totalitarian state, like the Imperium, recognizing someone else's power is not a perquisite to them having it as a matter of law. They have that authority because, somehow or another, it was delegated down to them from the Golden Throne. Anyone who doesn't recognize the authority is an ipso facto traitor and heretic, i.e., someone with no legitimacy whatsoever in society. That is the basic dynamic of a totalitarian society: all legitimacy comes from some centralized, absolute "top" of the hierarchy which has no legal limitation whatsoever.

No, authority is ALWAYS a matter of perception. Law is also only a matter of perception, and is the vehicle by which authority is derived. The Inquisition only have power insofar as people believe in their authority.

When any individual goes outside the authority granted them by the Emperor, they risk forfeiting said authority. After all, it is only the world of the Emperor that granted them that authority in the first place. If they violate the rights and authority the Emperor granted to others, then from whence is their own authority derived.

While I agree the "top" of the hierarchy has no legal limitation, the Emperor isn't doing anything. Everyone below his (that is, everyone in the Imperium, from High Lords to Inquisitors to the meanest serf) has legal limitations they must adhere to to maintain their authority.

And once more: a real example of feudalism does exist in the Imperium, between Terra and Mars.

In a more relevant analogy, the second the American colonies decided they weren't a part of the British Empire, they ceased to be. The British Empire attempted to enforce its rules militarily, just as the Imperium would.

riplikash wrote:No, authority is ALWAYS a matter of perception.

Nope. The Inquisition has a saying about this: "Innocence proves nothing." Whole sectors have perceived themselves as not subject to the Imperium. Guess what? They were wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Veteran Sergeant wrote:In a more relevant analogy, the second the American colonies decided they weren't a part of the British Empire, they ceased to be.

Not at all. Think of what a Loyalist living in the colonies thought about the colonies in 1776. As far as Britain is concerned, the US began with the Treaty of Paris in 1783.

Manchu wrote:I guess if all the people in China stopped believing that the government had power over them then China wouldn't be a totalitarian regime? Er, no. Or rather, yes, but not in any meaningful sense. Same with the Imperium.

Also, we already agree that the Imeprium is feudalistic in practice. But even so, no one can appeal to any rights. They appeal instead to honor -- and bolters.

Actually, if all the people in China stopped believing that the government had power over them, then yes, China would cease to be a totalitarian regime. They would have no solders (who only join because they believe in the authority of the government), no taxes (which are only paid because people believe the government has the authority to demand them) no property (which only exists because people believe a government has the authority to declare such things) no police (if no one stops for the police officer, or listens to what he says, is he really a police officer) no foreign relations (what country acknowledges a self proclaimed government that commands no army or citizenry). A government that is not acknowledged by the populace is not a government at all.

As for appealing rights, that is what balance of power is all about. If serfs don't respect the rights set forth by their lord, they bring it to their lord. If the lord doesn't respect those rights, it's brought to the governor. If the governors rights aren't respected by the Ecclesiarchy it is brought to the Administratum. If an Administrator violates rights it is brought to his superior. If the Administratum itself steps out of bounds, it goes to the high lords or the inquisition.

At the top it is all about balance of power, as it is in any government. The various top level organizations balance one another out, and really what heresy is all about. Anyone who steps outside of their authority is by definition violating the word of the Emperor, and therefore a Heretic. High Lords who trample on governors are heretics, Inquisitors who seek personal power are heretics, and chapter masters who go off and do their own thing are heretics. If you can convince everyone that someone is a heretic, that person loses their power.

Even the Inquisition is susceptible to this. A politically weak Inquisitor who tries to declare the Ultramarines heretics is going to be declared a heretic himself, obviously in the service of Chaos and attempting to undermine the word of the Emperor. The Ultramarines word is going to have a lot more sway than some upstart young inquisitor, so the young inquisitor gets branded heretic, loses all authority, and is rapidly dealt with.

If a powerful, or multiple powerful inquisitors declared the Ultramarines heretics things would get more interesting. They both have legal authority in this matter, and are acting within their rights. Likely there would be many who would side with both, and a civil war would erupt. So both sides avoid this scenario.

An inquisitor acting outside the bounds of his authority is just as susceptible to accusations of heresy as anyone else. And if the label sticks (as it likely will when confronting a powerful organization alone) they will quickly find they have no power whatsoever.

Authority is illustrated not by one's perception, but by one's ability to enforce it. The Inquisition commands the biggest and the most guns, by virtue of their authority granted by the God-Emperor of Mankind. Don't believe them? As the Tyrant of Badab how that worked out for him.

I did want to come back to a previous point, though, because I find it interesting:

The Imperium has plenty of legal responsibilities. Their vassal planets can legally call upon the Imperium for protection, communication, travel, and mediation, and has rights against Imperial tampering with local politics.

If a given world or Planetary Governor feels that the Imperium is not meeting its "legal responsibilities" or is overstepping its legal bounds, in regards to his world, who does he appeal to to make the Imperium stop, or otherwise force the Imperium to meet its legal responsibilities?

High Lords who trample on governors are heretics

As far as I can tell, this is something that you have made up. And it is the cornerstone of your argument.

Manchu wrote:Nope. The Inquisition has a saying about this: "Innocence proves nothing." Whole sectors have perceived themselves as not subject to the Imperium. Guess what? They were wrong.

I'm really not sure we are discussing the same thing here. Not sure what "Innocence proves nothing" has to do with anything.

But even in your example, it's still about perception. I'm talking about group perception, not individual perception. A single person not believing a police officer can ticket them is still getting a ticket. But if the vast majority of people don't recognize the authority of the police officer, then he has no authority.

Your example of a single sector believing they are not subjects of the Imperium isn't what I'm discussing. The vast majority of humanity disagreed.

Likewise, an inquisitor believing he can command a SM chapter doesn't matter if the SM and the general populace does not. A large percentage of the Imperium believes the Inquisition cannot command the Astartes. An inquisitor insisting he can doesn't really change that fact. If an inquisitor insisted on trying to command a chapter, and the chapter refused, the Inquisitors only recourse is to declare them heretics. But that only sticks so long as people recognize your authority. Using the example again, if some random inquisitor were to declare the Ultramarines heretics for not following his orders, he would immediately be met with accusations of heresy for overstepping the bounds of authority the Emperor set forth.

Would it stick? Depends on the power and prestige of the Inquisitor in question. It's all about perception. Does the populace perceive the Inquisitor as a heretic, or having authority? Does the general you are trying to command to attack the Ultramarines perceive you as a heretic or a servant of the Emperor?

Likely no single inquisitor would survive such an accusation against the Ultramarines. They would be branded a heretic serving the forces of chaos by the military, the populace, the church, and their fellow inquisitors.

You are not talking about laws; you are talking about mobs. The police officer who wants to arrest a criminal protected by a mob of people doesn't suddenly lose his authority to arrest the criminal just because he can't overcome the mob.

Manchu wrote:As far as I can tell, this is something that you have made up. And it is the cornerstone of your argument.

The Emperor laid down the laws of the Imperium. It made it very clear: pay the tithe, protect your planet, avoid heresy, keep mutation out of your populace, and beyond that you are free to govern yourself. The Imperium will protect you from threats both without and within. This is key to the working of the Imperium, it is the social contract which holds the Imperium together. The requirements put of planets and the Emperors policy of non-interference are repeated throughout the fluff.

The Emperor then set up the High Lords of Terra to govern this organization, and perpetuate this style of government, this social contract. He set up the adeptas with their balance of power, the Rogue Traders, etc.

The High Lords can no more go against the word of the Emperor than the lowliest serf. He is word is, after all, absolute law for every citizen in the Imperium. A high lord who routinely goes against the mode of government set up by the Emperor is eventually going to be declared a heretic, either by the inquisition, or by one of the numerous other groups that have a vested interest in maintaining their independence.

Am I saying High Lords are absolutely unable to act in non-lawful ways and trample upon the rights of governors? Of course not! People break the law all the time, from teenagers to political heads of state. You or I can occasionally violate the rights of others with little to no repercussion. But it IS breaking the law, that is, the word of the Emperor.

Will one or two offenses get them excommunicated? Probably not.

But that system of rights DOES hold them in check. Break the word of the Emperor too many times, act in ways contrary to his word, and someone is going to declare you excommunicatus.

That is why I say the Imperium is not a totalitarian state in any practical way, because no one group has unlimited authority, save the Emperor. A High Lord that routinely goes against the Emperors mode of government, the Emperors very word is not likely to stay a High Lord for long.

Psienesis wrote:Authority is illustrated not by one's perception, but by one's ability to enforce it. The Inquisition commands the biggest and the most guns, by virtue of their authority granted by the God-Emperor of Mankind. Don't believe them? As the Tyrant of Badab how that worked out for him.

It's not about YOUR perception, it's about everyone elses. The ability to enforce authority on a grand scale relies on your ability to maintain your authority in the eyes of those that follow you.

As other have stated many times, in the Imperium, all authority is derived from the Emperor. That is why Inquisitors often have such a hard time with Space Marines, as the populace and military see both of them as direct servants of the Emperor. If there is a conflict between the two, then obviously one is a heretic, and thus has no authority. Who the populace will decide the traitor is when both are acting within their legal bounds as defined by the emperor typically comes down to a matter of perception.

The Ultramarines, the Emperors holy angels of death who fought Horus and have served the Imperium for millenia, or Inquisitor Bob? Yeah, the Ultramarines are coming out ahead on that one. However, with a less powerful, influential, religiously significant chapter things can easily go the other way.

I did want to come back to a previous point, though, because I find it interesting:

If a given world or Planetary Governor feels that the Imperium is not meeting its "legal responsibilities" or is overstepping its legal bounds, in regards to his world, who does he appeal to to make the Imperium stop, or otherwise force the Imperium to meet its legal responsibilities?

Who is "The Imperium"? "The Imperium" isn't a single thing that tramples on rights, it is all individuals. Is it a local Administer? You go to his higher ups. A local commander isn't defending as he is supposed to? You go to the general. The General? Someone in the munitorium. All the way up to the High Lords of Terra, the Inquisition, and the various other heads of the Adeptas who keep each other in check.

Does that mean it is always going to end fairly? Obviously not, the Imperium is RIFE with corruption.

But a government that ignores its obligations more often than not quickly ceases to be a government. It is in a governments best interests to enforce the social contract. The Imperium only exists as an entity as long as its member worlds continue to pay the tithe and listen to its authority.

A single world feeling disenfranchised isn't a big deal. Even if they rebel the Imperium has 5-10 other worlds that support it.

But if the Imperium disenfranchised half, or all of it's member worlds it could no longer enforce its will, and would cease to be.

In response to the terrorism question: The greatest weapon of terrorists is the humanity of their opponents. They hide in the general population, and their targets refuse to use weapons of mass destruction or genocide to eradicate them. The Imperium of Man has no issue with annihilating the entire planetary population if they have to.

riplikash wrote:"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.

No, at the end of the day all power resides with the High Lords.

The High Lords can, and sometimes do, decide the fate of entire sectors, let alone entire planetary populations. People might be able to get away with a lot of stuff on the lower end of the scale, but not because of the way the system is structured. Heaven help anyone foolish enough to draw the eye of the Imperium, for their power is limitless.

There is nothing to indicate that when the High Lords summarily dismiss a planetary governor, for any reason whatsoever, that they are acting unlawfully. Again, this is something that you seem to have made up based on the idea that Imperium is somehow an example of a social contract. I'm beginning to see that you don't understand that a planetary governor is the representative of the High Lords on that planet; not the representative of the planet to the High Lords.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

riplikash wrote:But if the Imperium disenfranchised half, or all of it's member worlds it could no longer enforce its will, and would cease to be.

Actually, it didn't work out that way at all. The Terra Nova Interregnum was crushed and it only took about 900 years. The very existence of the Imperium is premised on going out on a Great Crusade and "disenfranchising" the whole damn galaxy.