Deus Pater (Exalted/40k)

The reaction of the Mechanicus to this development is going to be just, a whole thing.

"The Omnissiah truly processes your data!"

[X] Retribution - You will go to the Admiral on the bridge, and there in his place of power you will demonstrate the folly of his callous disregard. He will be broken, body and will, before you are done, and only then will you reforge him into a true servant of the Emperor.
 
[X] Usurpation - Command the spirit of the ship and take away that which the Admiral believes is his by right. When he humbles himself before you and acknowledges his own transgression, you will consider the possibility of forgiveness.

@Candesce raises a super salient point and I'm a huge fan of the mirrored approach, of the sort of symmetry.

The update talks a lot about the pride of the Navy and a huge part of that pride is invested in their ships, in their ability to travel freely when so many in the Imperium are lashed metaphorically-if-not-literally in place. In their effectively unquestioned rule of the Void (save for the Mechanicus armadas iirc but the AdMech is effectively an empire-within-an-empire and by and large the other other main competitor, the Rogue Trader fleets, don't directly compete with the Navy proper). And it's this pride that got the deck officer killed and it's this pride that had the Admiral effectively shrug his shoulders and decide that what the ground-bound thought didn't really matter. And it's this pride that meant that the naval station on Solus didn't even really try to stop him because Navy Above All Else.

More than any other option Usurpation attacks that pride. It's not a breaking exactly, it's a very public, visceral humbling that directly focuses on a fundamental pillar of what it means to be a part of the Navy. And it makes a pretty powerful statement all on its own: "You have invested everything you are into this ship and it still recognizes me over you". And considering the deep affinity if not outright affection many naval personnel probably have for their craft, especially a flagship like this? That's going to resonate in a way that a straightforward beatdown might not.

Plus it's pretty in line with how we've been handling other shit I think. We tend to give people A Chance when we can, for calculating and compassionate reasons. It's how we handled the Arch-deacon after all.



I mean, Retribution literally outlines how we'll take this man, break him, and make him a loyal servant or kill him. If that's not "accepting" idk what is.

Honestly I'm kinda cool on the Retribution option in general I think. On the one hand the guy's a more-than-deserving target who rules his ship with a heavy hand but it's got a pretty high potential for collateral and doesn't really address the systemic issue presented by the Navy. That "fuck you I do what I want". Being killed in the line of duty isn't a new thing for them and just because it comes from a glowy golden brawler instead of a shell the size of a house punching through the bridge doesn't, like, make a significant difference in how they approach things imo.
As much as I agree with you, our character does not. Remember how he choose to forgo the services of the inquisitor but choose to make a point? That also didn't address the systemic issue of the inquisition, yet we did it anyway. Why are you making an exception for the Navy, when you did not even try with the Inquisitor?
 
[X] Retribution - You will go to the Admiral on the bridge, and there in his place of power you will demonstrate the folly of his callous disregard. He will be broken, body and will, before you are done, and only then will you reforge him into a true servant of the Emperor.
 
As much as I agree with you, our character does not. Remember how he choose to forgo the services of the inquisitor but choose to make a point? That also didn't address the systemic issue of the inquisition, yet we did it anyway. Why are you making an exception for the Navy, when you did not even try with the Inquisitor?

I mean the Inquisitor literally had the most personally dedicated members of our congregation lashed to stakes and was going to burn them and then probably us at some point in the near future and I pretty distinctly recall me, among others, pointing out "hey maybe welcoming this guy into your arms immediately after would be pretty gross and send a kind of unfortunate Message to our flock". So in terms of reasons to not try there that's a pretty solid one imo. And I also pretty distinctly remember another argument re: the situation with the Inquisitor being that letting him go has a meaningful chance to do more damage to the Ordo Malleus and the greater Inquisition in the long run than just killing him here and burying the truth. Also the general desperation and chaos of the circumstances following so close on the heels of the Exaltation and the fact that, like, "but you haven't consistently tried to fix Everything so why start?" is definitely A Take.

This situation is way more analogous to the Conclave I think and the fact that you're completely ignoring the whole "The person who called the Inquisition upon us and then sincerely repented when confronted with the error of their actions" deal is a bit weird. I mean our relationship with this Admiral has a different dynamic, obviously, but it's way more comparable in terms of "person is passively participating in an actively shitty system that's instilled preserve principles" vs "person is a die hard zealot, true believer, and singularly empowered part of the system that works to defend and sustain the entire mess".

So yeah the "but the character doesn't believe this though" argument falls kinda flat and that's on top of the fact that, like, if an option is presented at all it means it wouldn't be completely out of character for Ignatius in general.

Ultimately Retribution just teaches the Navy that Ignatius and Sanguis are dangerous. I want to teach the Navy that Ignatius and Sanguis are different.
 
Last edited:
Also nothing could be more terrifying then suddenly not being able to trust the ship that keeps you from sucking hard vacuum.
 
[X] Usurpation - Command the spirit of the ship and take away that which the Admiral believes is his by right. When he humbles himself before you and acknowledges his own transgression, you will consider the possibility of forgiveness.
 
[X] Usurpation - Command the spirit of the ship and take away that which the Admiral believes is his by right. When he humbles himself before you and acknowledges his own transgression, you will consider the possibility of forgiveness.
 
I mean the Inquisitor literally had the most personally dedicated members of our congregation lashed to stakes and was going to burn them and I pretty distinctly recall me, among others, pointing out "hey maybe welcoming this guy into your arms immediately after would be pretty gross and send a kind of unfortunate Message to our flock". So in terms of reasons to not try there that's a pretty solid one imo. And I also pretty distinctly remember another argument re: the situation with the Inquisitor being that letting him go has a meaningful chance to do more damage to the Ordo Malleus and the greater Inquisition in the long run than just killing him here and burying the truth. Also the general desperation and chaos of the circumstances following so close on the heels of the Exaltation and the fact that, like, "but you haven't consistently tried to fix Everything so why start?" is definitely A Take.

This situation is way more analogous to the Conclave I think and the fact that you're completely ignoring the whole "The person who called the Inquisition upon us and then sincerely repented when confronted with the error of their actions" deal is a bit weird. I mean our relationship with this Admiral has a different dynamic, obviously, but it's way more comparable in terms of "person is passively participating in an actively shitty system that's instilled preserve principles" vs "person is a die hard zealot, true believer, and singularly empowered part of the system that works to defend and sustain the entire mess".

So yeah the "but the character doesn't believe this though" argument falls kinda flat and that's on top of the fact that, like, if an option is presented at all it means it wouldn't be completely out of character for Ignatius in general.

Ultimately Retribution just teaches the Navy that Ignatius and Sanguis are dangerous. I want to teach the Navy that Ignatius and Sanguis are different.
Well the inquisitor represented what the Imperium's stance on religion and the faiths interpretation. The inquisitor won't be the first who is vehemently opposed to what we stand for and had killed people before meeting us. Yet instead on accepting his services as a form of redemption, we instead told him off. All that did was make the old guard our enemy while giving the Ordo Malleus a heads up on our current circumstances.

The Conclave is a whole different matter compared to the Inquisition. True the inquisitor was called in as such to be used a tool, but now that tool understands the truth. To refuse that tool and instead turn him away to further sow the seeds of resentment? I don't see how that action was anything but perpetuating a system designed to stomp on what we represent. Furthermore, a person who is a "a diehard zealot, who truly believes in the system" deserves a chance at redemption. You would deny that person a chance at your side for past mistakes and your own image, then the Admiral who flagrantly skims the limits of his authority for expedience? The Inquisitor burned people because he whole heartedly believed that he was saving their souls and that he was doing the right thing, while the Admiral didn't want to deal with the paperwork and needed recruits now.
 
Last edited:
Okay ngl I'm legitimately unsure what the point you're making is save that I think it's "we should have kept the Inquisitor"/"we forgave the Arch-Deacon...and that was a mistake" but already we're at a very different place than "this is something the character doesn't believe in" which is how you started out the argument. :V

And, I mean, my point always kinda was that this is something that Ignatius believes in so idk why you'd draw the line here necessarily when there are more systemically effective options available.
 
Okay ngl I'm legitimately unsure what the point you're making is save that I think it's "we should have kept the Inquisitor"/"we forgave the Arch-Deacon...and that was a mistake" but already we're at a very different place than "this is something the character doesn't believe in" which is how you started out the argument. :V

And, I mean, my point always kinda was that this is something that Ignatius believes in so idk why you'd draw the line here necessarily when there are more systemically effective options available.
To be honest, the actions taken so far didn't really mesh with our first actions of banishing the Inquisitor. Why forgive the Archdeacon with consigning the burning of our flock while not the Inquisitor? Consistency is very lacking here is all I'm saying. I suppose I simply believe that Ignatius would be more "hard" to those people who are more open to violence then intrigue? Rather he doesn't care about the people who are used as tools but would negotiate with the people in charge that could facilitate change.

Edit: That or he's more prejudiced against the inquisition.
 
Last edited:
To be honest, the actions taken so far didn't really mesh with our first actions of banishing the Inquisitor. Why forgive the Archdeacon with consigning the burning of our flock while not the Inquisitor? Consistency is very lacking here is all I'm saying. I suppose I simply believe that Ignatius would be more "hard" to those people who are more open to violence then intrigue? Rather he doesn't care about the people who are used as tools but would negotiate with the people in charge that could facilitate change.

Edit: That or he's more prejudiced against the inquisition.

Ignatius is a deeply biased man and is every bit as prone to emotion as any other human.

The main reason all three options I posed here have been combative as all hell are because he is currently incredibly pissed.
 
Ignatius is a deeply biased man and is every bit as prone to emotion as any other human.

The main reason all three options I posed here have been combative as all hell are because he is currently incredibly pissed.

"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am in the service of the Emperor when I lay my vengeance upon you."
 
[X] Usurpation - Command the spirit of the ship and take away that which the Admiral believes is his by right. When he humbles himself before you and acknowledges his own transgression, you will consider the possibility of forgiveness.
 
Ignatius is a deeply biased man and is every bit as prone to emotion as any other human.

The main reason all three options I posed here have been combative as all hell are because he is currently incredibly pissed.
It is your story, but keep in mind that our actions should have consequences on the mind and prejudices of our character. To forgive a man who ordered the killing the thousands while banishing the man who obeyed his orders? There should be some repercussions, seeing as how we would find ourselves becoming a hypocrite.

Edit: That and a deeply fractured psyche.
 
Last edited:
[X] Usurpation - Command the spirit of the ship and take away that which the Admiral believes is his by right. When he humbles himself before you and acknowledges his own transgression, you will consider the possibility of forgiveness.
 
[X] Retribution - You will go to the Admiral on the bridge, and there in his place of power you will demonstrate the folly of his callous disregard. He will be broken, body and will, before you are done, and only then will you reforge him into a true servant of the Emperor.
 
It is your story, but keep in mind that our actions should have consequences on the mind and prejudices of our character. To forgive a man who ordered the killing the thousands while banishing the man who obeyed his orders? There should be some repercussions, seeing as how we would find ourselves becoming a hypocrite.

Edit: That and a deeply fractured psyche.

I'll be honest I'm not really following you here? You clearly see a serious disconnect between the two situations and Ignatius' possible responses to them, given the talk of hypocrisy and a fractured psyche, but I'm not sure why or where. Mind elaborating?
 
I'll be honest I'm not really following you here? You clearly see a serious disconnect between the two situations and Ignatius' possible responses to them, given the talk of hypocrisy and a fractured psyche, but I'm not sure why or where. Mind elaborating?
Well in our first major choose, we were given the option of taking the Inquisitor into our service (effectively "forgiving" him for burning our flock), killing him, or banishing him for the atrocities he had committed in service to his order. We choose to banish him for his past sins.

Now, consider how we choose to pardon the Deacon. Why did we do so, when she also knew that her actions would cause the death of untold thousands. She to believed that her actions would benefit the Imperium and that the burning of our flock was a necessary sacrifice. Yet we choose to pardon her? For political expediency?

Now we are at an impasse again. The Admiral was in the process of forcefully conscripting the locals in his service. There was no high thinking philosophy here, just that he believes that his needs supersede that of the locals and that he had the power to do so. Now, you would contemplate taking this kind of man into our service? There's a huge disconnect from all three of these decisions.

Edit: Remember, we choose not to go with the Inquisitor because it would signify that we accept that sometimes political expediency trumps what is right and just. However our follow up decisions do not reflect our philosophy. That's the problem, in my point of view.
 
Last edited:
[X] Usurpation - Command the spirit of the ship and take away that which the Admiral believes is his by right. When he humbles himself before you and acknowledges his own transgression, you will consider the possibility of forgiveness.

It is quite possible that the admiral had real need, and that he saw his actions as a good thing, both for the empire, and, in the long run, for the people he was conscripting. It is also possible that he heard of us being investigated by the inquisition, etc, etc. It is quite possible that he himself is a man who misstept, but is on the right path of life overall.
 
Last edited:
[X] Usurpation - Command the spirit of the ship and take away that which the Admiral believes is his by right. When he humbles himself before you and acknowledges his own transgression, you will consider the possibility of forgiveness.
 
[X] Usurpation - Command the spirit of the ship and take away that which the Admiral believes is his by right. When he humbles himself before you and acknowledges his own transgression, you will consider the possibility of forgiveness.
 
[X] Usurpation - Command the spirit of the ship and take away that which the Admiral believes is his by right. When he humbles himself before you and acknowledges his own transgression, you will consider the possibility of forgiveness.
 
[X] Usurpation - Command the spirit of the ship and take away that which the Admiral believes is his by right. When he humbles himself before you and acknowledges his own transgression, you will consider the possibility of forgiveness.
 
Back
Top