Deus Pater (Exalted/40k)

You mean "no more than a year long task" goal, right? Because Solar Bureaucracy charm has Speed the Wheels:

This is pretty clearly for dealing with organizations you are not a part of. And "electing a new Ecclesiarch" is clearly a bureaucratic project. So, no more than a year.

Or at the very least we could get a meeting with Lords of Terra in a year. Solar Bureaucracy for the win!

I mean a 'long term task' for a few reasons, one of which is that while arranging an election might be a bureaucratic task, winning it is most assuredly not. Speed the Wheels accelerates a project, it does not guarantee success.

(Also I'm using 3e for the basis here, and while Speed the Wheels remains broadly similar across editions, only removing the roll and obstructive opponent clause, other effects do not).
 
Bloody hell, that's the first time I've seen a vote this even. I'm still for Defiance, purely to not compromise our ideals for practicality, which is what caused the Imperium's downfall.
 
What war?
I can see nothing in Defiance vote which anything about us declaring war on anyone.
"Established doctrine is wrong, and the words of the Ecclesiarchy a betrayal of the God they claim to revere."
That is essentially a declaration of war, and it will be seen as such by every member of the Imperium. Calling the Ecclesiarchy traitors to the Emperor is a more hostile act than bombing their buildings. It leaves the Ecclesiarchy no other choice but to (attempt) to kill us all. Established doctrine is "Burn the heretic" , if they don't burn our world to the ground then that is acknowledging we are correct.
 
[X] Philosophy. Construct a system of quotes, teachings and doctrine from across the ages that can be used to justify your new approach. Such a change of belief will be wide-reaching and thorough, but requires more time to convey and is easier for other priests to engage with and attack.
 
"Established doctrine is wrong, and the words of the Ecclesiarchy a betrayal of the God they claim to revere."
That is essentially a declaration of war, and it will be seen as such by every member of the Imperium. Calling the Ecclesiarchy traitors to the Emperor is a more hostile act than bombing their buildings. It leaves the Ecclesiarchy no other choice but to (attempt) to kill us all. Established doctrine is "Burn the heretic" , if they don't burn our world to the ground then that is acknowledging we are correct.

No? They can just accept we have a point and agree to change.

They won't, at least not all of them, but that's their problem and not a "declaration of war".

edit: in fact, the thing that Ecclesiarchy's doctrine is "burn the heretic" is not a good thing either, and tacitly supporting it by playing along is...not the end of the world, but still a thing.
 
Last edited:
New
[X] Philosophy. Construct a system of quotes, teachings and doctrine from across the ages that can be used to justify your new approach. Such a change of belief will be wide-reaching and thorough, but requires more time to convey and is easier for other priests to engage with and attack
 
There is value in facing your enemies directly, in dragging what's wrong into the light kicking and screaming and showing everyone what foul creature the Imperial Faith has become over ten thousand years without any pretense. We will be faced with people attempting to kill us openly and plainly, but knowing you are in an open feud is easier for people to rally behind as well as support.

Defiance is going to be problematic in the same way fighting any war for the soul of mankind would be, but it's one we are going to have to fight anyway, and I'd prefer to start as we mean to continue rather than playing catch up with ourselves later when we start to eliminate more problematic tenets of the faith. This way we can declare our position and stand by it from the word "Go". Also painting a clear target for us to design rebuttals and arguements in support of to combat the propoganda that is sure to be used, there are only so many variations of "Heretic" that can be used and we are very clearly blessed by the Emperor given careful examination. Having that kind of ace in the hole to help convince some who resists us out of fear of open Heresy rather than greed, lust for power, or arrogance is fantastic.

[X] Defiance. Established doctrine is wrong, and the words of the Ecclesiarchy a betrayal of the God they claim to revere. Such a clean break makes further changes a lot easier to introduce, but makes you much more vulnerable to accusations of heresy and invites direct opposition.
 
This is largely a vote on how we present ourselves to the Imperium. That presentation will have a massive run-on effect on later things, but this is not a direct vote for those things.

We can present ourselves as willing to work within the structures of the Imperium, which is to say, the intellectual and cultural fabric of the entirety of the rest of our species, representing thousands of years of literature and poetry, culture, and theology, a shared idiom making us intelligible to our fellow humans. Or we can essentially kick all of that to the curb and declare that we, uniquely, have all the answers. For outside observers, which one looks like we want to change things, and which one looks like a really charismatic daemon prince has managed to infiltrate a Shrine World? That's happened before. More than once. The well has been thoroughly poisoned here; one of Chaos' most potent and insidious weapons in stymieing positive attempts at reform.

Ultimately ctulhuslp is wrong, vastly underestimating the scale of the problem here. We cannot both hope to save humanity, and not present unavoidably a threat that the Imperium will feel forced to either work with, or wage unrelenting war against militarily. We cannot just quietly sit in our single sector improving our granary management stats, and slowly levelling up our skills. We cannot just be the Tau, carefully and slowly expanding a compact territory. Or we could, but to do so is essentially to give up on our reason for existing. Humanity is dying right now. It will take a massive preponderance of military might to even hope to save it. We are going to need to expand our powerbase dramatically and keep doing so, grabbing every iota of strength we can. That is not something the Imperium will just stand by and ignore, they cannot ignore it; we will look like another incipient Horus. That is before one considers the literally apocalyptic implications of our heritage and our personal claim to the Throne.

We can either take over the Imperium, and take the Throne, after sweeping through on a wave of religious reawakening and miracles, perfectly playing our hand to convince the people and leaders of Humanity that we are their saviour, before finally revealing our parentage. Or we can declare war on the Imperium and watch is it burns to the ground, and its people burn with it, hoping to rebuild something better from the ashes. But we must do one of them, because to have the power we need to do anything of importance, we cannot simply sit around twiddling our thumbs trying to quietly level stats. This vote right now does not totally lock in either of those options, but Defiance makes outright conflict more likely. Not certain, but inarguably more likely.

As for what Imrix says, I understand where he is coming from but I think he confuses the possible with the actual. It is true that there are any number of alternate systems that, in the abstract, would do the job of the Imperium much better. It has any number of terrible, almost tragicomic negative externalises and problems; this is baked into the setting. But right now, at the dying of the light, where we find ourselves, it is the only structure able to provide a collective defence for most of humanity. If the Imperial Navy and Imperial Guard do not wage pre-emptive wars against the enemies of humanity, breaking up Hive Fleets and Waaaaaghs! before they arrive into populated sub-sectors, forcing the bulk of the fighting into buffer zones via proactive defence, then the majority of humanity are going to die, and die horribly. The fact that it is a supremely imperfect at doing so does not change the inconvenient truth that it is the only thing doing so. The one thing the Imperium reliably delivers on, as dysfunctional as it is, is collectivising humanity's resources on a massive scale and using them to wage war. This too, is baked into the setting. We, just logistically right now, will simply not be capable of reaching the vast majority of human space before it falls to invasion when a weakened Imperial Navy finally folds. At best we will be able to avenge them, and reconquer what is left.

As I said above, I can actually respect the argument that maybe pragmatically, that is the only thing we can do, and trying to save most of humanity is just not practicable. Notably, this is the same judgement the Emperor himself made, when he waited to launch the Great Crusade, building his forces in Sol, leaving humanity to the terrors of the Age of Strife.

But I don't want us to repeat the sins of our Father.
 
[X] Philosophy. Construct a system of quotes, teachings and doctrine from across the ages that can be used to justify your new approach. Such a change of belief will be wide-reaching and thorough, but requires more time to convey and is easier for other priests to engage with and attack.
 
[X] Philosophy. Construct a system of quotes, teachings and doctrine from across the ages that can be used to justify your new approach. Such a change of belief will be wide-reaching and thorough, but requires more time to convey and is easier for other priests to engage with and attack.
 
[X] Philosophy. Construct a system of quotes, teachings and doctrine from across the ages that can be used to justify your new approach. Such a change of belief will be wide-reaching and thorough, but requires more time to convey and is easier for other priests to engage with and attack.
 
As for what Imrix says, I understand where he is coming from but I think he confuses the possible with the actual. It is true that there are any number of alternate systems that, in the abstract, would do the job of the Imperium much better. It has any number of terrible, almost tragicomic negative externalises and problems; this is baked into the setting. But right now, at the dying of the light, where we find ourselves, it is the only structure able to provide a collective defence for most of humanity. If the Imperial Navy and Imperial Guard do not wage pre-emptive wars against the enemies of humanity, breaking up Hive Fleets and Waaaaaghs! before they arrive into populated sub-sectors, forcing the bulk of the fighting into buffer zones via proactive defence, then the majority of humanity are going to die, and die horribly. The fact that it is a supremely imperfect at doing so does not change the inconvenient truth that it is the only thing doing so. The one thing the Imperium reliably delivers on, as dysfunctional as it is, is collectivising humanity's resources on a massive scale and using them to wage war. This too, is baked into the setting. We, just logistically right now, will simply not be capable of reaching the vast majority of human space before it falls to invasion when a weakened Imperial Navy finally folds. At best we will be able to avenge them, and reconquer what is left.
No.

I reject the idea that a fascist, brutally oppressive and self-destructive empire is necessary for the preservation of humanity. As a moral principle, if that is how far humanity has fallen, then I view our continued existence as indefensible. As a practical objection, I maintain that major wars are simply not so common in 40k that we will not have sufficient time to get our house in order. I further maintain that a great part of the conflicts which the Imperium faces are generated by the Imperium itself, both by its status as the biggest target in the galaxy and also by its self-destructive nature.

The current state of the Imperium is not necessary, and even if it were that would be no justification for its continued existence.
 
Last edited:
[X] Defiance. Established doctrine is wrong, and the words of the Ecclesiarchy a betrayal of the God they claim to revere. Such a clean break makes further changes a lot easier to introduce, but makes you much more vulnerable to accusations of heresy and invites direct opposition.
 
We can present ourselves as willing to work within the structures of the Imperium, which is to say, the intellectual and cultural fabric of the entirety of the rest of our species, representing thousands of years of literature and poetry, culture, and theology, a shared idiom making us intelligible to our fellow humans. Or we can essentially kick all of that to the curb and declare that we, uniquely, have all the answers. For outside observers, which one looks like we want to change things, and which one looks like a really charismatic daemon prince has managed to infiltrate a Shrine World? That's happened before. More than once. The well has been thoroughly poisoned here; one of Chaos' most potent and insidious weapons in stymieing positive attempts at reform.

No, not entirety.
Only Ecclesiarchy and the parts of their doctrine which are corrupt and misguided.

It's not the entirety of mankind's culture by any stretch. It's not even close.

And this, I think, is a big part of our disagreement here: you seem to think that Imperium and Ecclesiarchy in their current forms are all there is to humanity in 40k, and open opposition to them means some sort of to-the-last war against any single part of Imperium.


I disagree. I think either option preserves humanity's culture and backstory, and Philosophy just goes along, at least partially, with totalitarian, corrupt and oppressive parts of it for perceived convenience, while Defiance doesn't.
 
Last edited:
[X] Philosophy. Construct a system of quotes, teachings and doctrine from across the ages that can be used to justify your new approach. Such a change of belief will be wide-reaching and thorough, but requires more time to convey and is easier for other priests to engage with and attack.
 
We can present ourselves as willing to work within the structures of the Imperium, which is to say, the intellectual and cultural fabric of the entirety of the rest of our species, representing thousands of years of literature and poetry, culture, and theology, a shared idiom making us intelligible to our fellow humans. Or we can essentially kick all of that to the curb and declare that we, uniquely, have all the answers. For outside observers, which one looks like we want to change things, and which one looks like a really charismatic daemon prince has managed to infiltrate a Shrine World? That's happened before. More than once. The well has been thoroughly poisoned here; one of Chaos' most potent and insidious weapons in stymieing positive attempts at reform.

The "structures of the Imperium" are based around the systematic guttering of entire planets to sustain a brutal war machine that spends most of it's time seal-clubbing dissident worlds back in line, rampant slavery in some of its worst forms, and supporting a truly horrific class divide where the wealthy are forever young and control world destroying weaponry and millions strong armies and the poor die before they're 50 without ever seeing the sun. It's a set up that's been repeatedly justified by essentially holding humanity hostage and going "but we're the only ones who can save you, if you overthrow us who else is there???" after, uh, exterminating or ruthlessly assimilating and neutering pretty much every other option.

I don't find "we should play the game because the rest of humanity tho" to be especially compelling, I don't think we need or should have our adopted father's dream of a mankind united under a single banner. And I don't find myself really moved by the idea that the Imperium is inherently a "necessary evil" when it's the same logic the Imperium's used to...well, to basically create the current conditions of the galaxy.

Ultimately just because Ignatius might, theoretically, have the chops to lead the entire galaxy doesn't mean he has the iron-clad obligation to do so or that he's implicitly an awful person but carving out his chunk of the Imperium and focusing on making that better. He might be a semi-divine man but he is still a man and I've honestly never been fond of the rationale that "you must metaphorically murder yourself to make the world a better place because you have superpowers/an Exaltations and thus you have a Responsibility To Do Such". Like the slender possibility justifies basically burning yourself out on the basis of a what-if.

And that is the kind of scenario where not being able to put out a call to for reinforcements outside of whatever you have in Sector at the time will hurt.

Yeah but by the same token iirc it's not uncommon for worlds under attack by, say, the Tyrannids or Orks or whatever to send a distress signal only for the fleets to show up months too late to do anything or show up and then decide the situation is lost despite continued action on the ground and burn out a bunch of worlds/abandon the rest. Like I said the Imperium justifies itself by pointing to the external, horrific things as necessitating their existence but on balance the fastest reactions and most immediate resources are going to come from sector-command level stuff. And if we take that anyway we're basically putting the tools there in better hands as it stands.
 
Last edited:
No.

I reject the idea that a fascist, brutally oppressive and self-destructive empire is necessary for the preservation of humanity. As a moral principle, if that is how far humanity has fallen, then I view our continued existence as indefensible. As a practical objection, I maintain that major wars are simply not so common in 40k that we will not have sufficient time to get our house in order. I further maintain that a great part of the conflicts which the Imperium faces are generated by the Imperium itself, both by its status as the biggest target in the galaxy and also by its self-destructive nature.

I understand where you're coming from Imrix, and I sympathise. I fondly remember painting my Rebel Space Marine Chapter minis when I was a teenager. Ultimately though, on consideration, I think 40K as a setting straight up disagrees with that take, and the necessity of the Imperial military for protecting humanity is not played as a justification, but rather as an inherent part of the tragedy of the setting.

There is no time left.

Simply as a point of fact, what exists if the Imperial Navy is no longer able to deter major invasions or break them up? We cannot simply pull a galaxy scale fleet out of our pocket, that is something which takes centuries to build at least, even for a polity with vastly greater capabilities than we have presently. It is an inarguable and basic part of the DNA of the setting that major wars in the 41st millennium are common, are growing increasingly common, and the defining objective of the Imperium is to fight them. It literally says it on the tin, so to speak:
In the Grim Darkness of the 41st Millennium, there is only war.

Whatever its many sins, waging wars and preserving the machinery necessary to fight war is the one thing the Imperium is semi-functional at doing. It is right now teetering at the brink of the abyss. Kicking it down, and I don't think it will take much at this point, removes the only shelter that trillions of people have, largely blameless people, the people in fact whose oppression and suffering makes us want to overturn the Imperium. We leave them exposed to the storm, naked and alone. They cannot spontaneously organise their own defence, not against the scale of threats humanity now faces. This is simply the inconvenient truth.

If this were say, M37, then things would be much easier, because we would have sufficient breathing room for much slower buildup of our powerbase followed by a short and limited civil war, and then to rebuild. But it isn't, and we don't. It is the dying of the light, which is why the Emperor was so desperate that he carved off a chunk of himself in a desperate last ditch gamble to save his children. We're playing for all the marbles here.
 
No? They can just accept we have a point and agree to change.
How? How can they possibly "just accept we have a point" ? They are based on representing the Emperor, they cannot accept they don't and continue to exist as an organisation.
Defiance is calling the existing doctrines/faith completely wrong. No religion just accepts being told they should not exist, the people to be purged do not just agree with the people saying they should be wiped out.

"agree to change" maybe (very unlikely) with the other options, but not with defiance.

I reject the idea that a fascist, brutally oppressive and self-destructive empire is necessary for the preservation of humanity.
The Imperium is necessary for the preservation of humanity, but the Imperium is not necessarily fascist, brutally oppressive and self-destructive. The sheer size, surrounding threats and limits on speed of travel/communication makes democratic government impossible. Humanity has to be ruled by an empire (until technology improves to the point of rapid travel/communications), but that Imperium can be much much much better.

Defying the Ecclesiarchy is one method but changing it: "Such a change of belief will be wide-reaching and thorough" is another.
If we can change the beliefs that 'different is bad', and 'suffering is always necessary', then that would be a major step towards improving the Imperium.

No, not entirety.
Only Ecclesiarchy and the parts of their doctrine which are corrupt and misguided.

It's not the entirety of mankind's culture by any stretch. It's not even close.

And this, I think, is a big part of our disagreement here: you seem to think that Imperium and Ecclesiarchy in their current forms are all there is to humanity in 40k, and open opposition to them means some sort of to-the-last war against any single part of Imperium.


I disagree. I think either option preserves humanity's culture and backstory, and Philosophy just goes along, at least partially, with totalitarian, corrupt and oppressive parts of it for perceived convenience, while Defiance doesn't.



"Philosophy just goes along, at least partially, with totalitarian, corrupt and oppressive parts of it for perceived convenience, while Defiance doesn't." I disagree completely. Philosophy does not say anything about compromising in any way. Justifying our approach with "quotes, teachings and doctrine from across the ages" is not compromising our beliefs. Our beliefs and teachings will remain the same in each choice. The choice is how we explain our teachings, with evidence, with claims of a vision, or by because I said so. Attempts can be made to disprove evidence, visions are limited to only what is in them, and because I said so makes you much more vulnerable to accusations of heresy.
 
Last edited:
[X] Philosophy. Construct a system of quotes, teachings and doctrine from across the ages that can be used to justify your new approach. Such a change of belief will be wide-reaching and thorough, but requires more time to convey and is easier for other priests to engage with and attack.

sadly unhitches wagon from hussite fort
 
"Philosophy just goes along, at least partially, with totalitarian, corrupt and oppressive parts of it for perceived convenience, while Defiance doesn't." I disagree completely. Philosophy does not say anything about compromising in any way. Justifying our approach with "quotes, teachings and doctrine from across the ages" is not compromising our beliefs. Our beliefs and teachings will remain the same in each choice. The choice is how we explain our teachings, with evidence, with claims of a vision, or by because I said so. Attempts can be made to disprove evidence, visions are limited to only what is in them, and because I said so makes you much more vulnerable to accusations of heresy.

Nope. There is a reason why Defiance explicitly says that it will make any changes easier:
[ ] Defiance. Established doctrine is wrong, and the words of the Ecclesiarchy a betrayal of the God they claim to revere. Such a clean break makes further changes a lot easier to introduce, but makes you much more vulnerable to accusations of heresy and invites direct opposition.


Means determine the ends, and using doctrine of ten millenia of brutal oppression and dehumanization of mutants and psykers and wrongthink will make creating saner doctrine that much harder.

Like,

[ ] Philosophy. Construct a system of quotes, teachings and doctrine from across the ages that can be used to justify your new approach. Such a change of belief will be wide-reaching and thorough, but requires more time to convey and is easier for other priests to engage with and attack.

We are very much going to be working within confines of Imperial "burn the heretics or anyone I, the dude with more golden skulls, call a heretic" doctrine.
 
Last edited:
Simply as a point of fact, what exists if the Imperial Navy is no longer able to deter major invasions or break them up? We cannot simply pull a galaxy scale fleet out of our pocket, that is something which takes centuries to build at least, even for a polity with vastly greater capabilities than we have presently. It is an inarguable and basic part of the DNA of the setting that major wars in the 41st millennium are common, are growing increasingly common, and the defining objective of the Imperium is to fight them. It literally says it on the tin, so to speak:

i mean the imperium also literally pre-emptively nuked dozens of worlds just to sorta-contain the tyrannids to ambiguous levels of success so it's very much a "with friends like these" type situation where, oftentimes, the most direct boot to anyone's balls belongs to what is ostensibly their own side. so it basically comes down to whether or not you think that justifies potentially having an armada of overwhelming power on hand (and by "on hand" i mean "showing up in thirty years or so") that will only maybe not blow you to shit too for the sake of expedience when it does show up or whether a smaller front with sector level battlefleets responding on a scale of weeks-to-months albeit with fewer resources does a better job against hive fleet tendrils or warbands from a WAAGH.

I think, fwiw, there's some merit in considering the fact that while large military action is possible fronts themselves are uuuuusually(? I think?) fairly broad as well with fighting taking place over multiple subsectors/sectors. And concentrations of force upon a relative handful of worlds being rare when it's usually, like, the Astartes that are deployed to do that kinda thing.

"Philosophy just goes along, at least partially, with totalitarian, corrupt and oppressive parts of it for perceived convenience, while Defiance doesn't." I disagree completely. Philosophy does not say anything about compromising in any way.

The entire ethos of Philosophy is that we stay within the framework of the Imperial Cult and try to effect change from within, I mean you can agree or disagree that that's the best course of action but don't, like, pretend it's not what it is.
 
Last edited:
I understand where you're coming from Imrix, and I sympathise. I fondly remember painting my Rebel Space Marine Chapter minis when I was a teenager. Ultimately though, on consideration, I think 40K as a setting straight up disagrees with that take, and the necessity of the Imperial military for protecting humanity is not played as a justification, but rather as an inherent part of the tragedy of the setting.

There is no time left.

Simply as a point of fact, what exists if the Imperial Navy is no longer able to deter major invasions or break them up? We cannot simply pull a galaxy scale fleet out of our pocket, that is something which takes centuries to build at least, even for a polity with vastly greater capabilities than we have presently. It is an inarguable and basic part of the DNA of the setting that major wars in the 41st millennium are common, are growing increasingly common, and the defining objective of the Imperium is to fight them. It literally says it on the tin, so to speak:


Whatever its many sins, waging wars and preserving the machinery necessary to fight war is the one thing the Imperium is semi-functional at doing. It is right now teetering at the brink of the abyss. Kicking it down, and I don't think it will take much at this point, removes the only shelter that trillions of people have, largely blameless people, the people in fact whose oppression and suffering makes us want to overturn the Imperium. We leave them exposed to the storm, naked and alone. They cannot spontaneously organise their own defence, not against the scale of threats humanity now faces. This is simply the inconvenient truth.

If this were say, M37, then things would be much easier, because we would have sufficient breathing room for much slower buildup of our powerbase followed by a short and limited civil war, and then to rebuild. But it isn't, and we don't. It is the dying of the light, which is why the Emperor was so desperate that he carved off a chunk of himself in a desperate last ditch gamble to save his children. We're playing for all the marbles here.
Well Said Good Person this IS the DARK Millenium becaus at this point it would take BIg E HIMSELF PLUS Primarchs to do the sort of wide Scale restructuring needed to try and fix that Tagline There is only war Its sad but Its that or Chaos Murderfucking Everyones souls forever and ever Something Imrix Overlooks in favor of a Moral Philosophy that the Post Heresy universe no longer has the Luxury of being able to Indulge
 
Last edited:
Back
Top