|
Post by Kage2020 on Mar 27, 2004 18:26:22 GMT -5
And there we reach the fine balance between the fact that all of those people that you mention are answerable to me and I, in turn, am answerable to everyone else. Kind of like the CEO I would imagine... I really do see the adeptus terra as an entirely parasitic organisation whose involvement in local government is entirely dependent on the whim of the Imperial Commander. The question is what that level will be because of that Imperial Commander... Kage
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Apr 3, 2004 7:41:18 GMT -5
From the slightly heated discussion with Kage, we basically agreed on the following facts: - ALL worlds considered to be under Imperial control (i.e. those which the Imperium itself rates as 'controlled') by definition must always have an Imperial Commander. The Imperial Commander is a general name given to a Governor, Cardinal, Chapter Master, King, Supreme Pontiff etc etc, basically anyone with sanctioned control over the overwhelming majority of the land and/or population on a single world or system, depending on the requirements of the local Adterra body. Personally I think that there should also be a rank of 'Imperial Commander' in the Adeptus Terra, i.e. someone from offworld brought in specifically to rule the planet or system. Kage seemed to disagree. - The level of influence of the Adeptus Terra as a centralised authority is highly variable, generally depending on the rank of those Adepts on assignment to the world or system. A few lowly scribes wouldn't have much influence in the government, serving merely to inform the quasi-independent Imperial Commander of his obligations, rights and the general opinion of the adterra in matters. Higher officials (Prefects and Magos) should actually be able to influence decisions and even threaten offworlder action should things not go their way.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Apr 3, 2004 10:55:17 GMT -5
From the slightly heated discussion with Kage... The fact that I have absolutely no memory about such a discussion is worrying and means that I'm working too hard. Personally I think that there should also be a rank of 'Imperial Commander' in the Adeptus Terra, i.e. someone from offworld brought in specifically to rule the planet or system. Kage seemed to disagree. Or there was some misunderstanding. The rank of Imperial Commander (as you would see with a quick perusal of the now defunct website of mine) has nominal rank with the nobilitas imperialis and, in essence, the adeptus terra (bearing with it certain legal and military priveleges and obligations). The wrong end of the stick may have derived from the fact that I would never accept that an Imperial Commander must always be imposed, as the above quote seems to suggest. Rather the nature of the 'raising' of an Imperial Commander is dependent upon both the local political situation (of the planet) and the extended politics of the Imperium in a given volume or in terms of policy of the senatorum imperialis. The level of influence of the Adeptus Terra as a centralised authority is highly variable, generally depending on the rank of those Adepts on assignment to the world or system. I'm fairly sure I would have said that it has more to do with the 'historical momentum' (or some such twoddly term) of the place. The more important the location, the more Imperial presence and the greater 'pressure' on the world and, therefore, the more likely the integration of the adeptus terra into the local political structure either through assimilation, long-term imposition or whatever. Higher officials (Prefects and Magos) should actually be able to influence decisions and even threaten offworlder action should things not go their way. This is just the Pavonis situation, in essence, and not the ultimate goal of the thread although it does make an interesting point about the political and social rank of the individual that is sent, or the letters of authority (i.e. senatorial privilege) that such an officer would receive... Kage
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Apr 3, 2004 13:16:02 GMT -5
Bit of an anarchist, are we?
Seriously though; no Imperial Commander? How do you propose the planet is governed in the absence of any central authority?
|
|
|
Post by Minister on Apr 3, 2004 13:49:52 GMT -5
The alocation of the ability to select the ruler to a local council, the granting of a hereditary title etc etc....
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Apr 3, 2004 14:32:30 GMT -5
We included that under the general banner of 'Imperial Commander'...
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Apr 3, 2004 16:15:15 GMT -5
Bit of an anarchist, are we? Nope, not in the slightest. I don't care enough about specific political systems to really become involved in such ways. I'm an apathist. Seriously though; no Imperial Commander? How do you propose the planet is governed in the absence of any central authority? That's not what I said. With the obvious answer that no balkanised world has, by definition, a centralised authority (with the exception of the 'Imperial Commander' who obviously takes a peripheral role here... somehow! ). Anyway, I'm fairly sure that what I said was this: Which, generally, would be taken to mean that while they can be imposed logic and political necessity, or desire, might determine that they are raised from the population. The specific nature of this is up for grabs, but the outside imposition of a 'foreign governor' could foreseeably create political and economic tensions that would be undesireable. When coupled with one of the more 'strict' organisations of the Imperium - the adeptus ministorum - allows for acculturation rather than imposition of the Imperial Cult, I feel it strange that the adeptus adminstratum would be so politically naive, or perhaps inept, to accept the advantages of 'raising' over imposition in specific situations. (I'm also reminded of the imposed governor gig and the reasons for that from Machiavelli...) ... The same situation arises on the quandry of imposition or 'raising' of officers of the organisations of the adeptus terra. Kage
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Apr 3, 2004 16:20:25 GMT -5
I think we have that element of confusion *again*...
I'm taking 'Imperial Commander' to refer to any world leader than the Imperium approves of, be he local or assigned from elsewhere.
Now do you agree with me that the overwhelming majority must have one of these to function as an 'Imperial' world?
I take the opinion that the Imperium won't rate any world as 'under control' if it is fractured into squabbling 'nations'. It will always aim to have a single world leader where at all possible.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Apr 3, 2004 16:27:53 GMT -5
Imperial Commander refers to an individual who governs a specific 'fief' under fiant from the adeptus terra and, more specifically, the Emperor. This can mean one world, or many and, for the most part, tends to imply many (i.e. a system). This has been what I have always meant. I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about now especially since the statements following the 'heated argument' discussion are not something that I would have said... well, assuming that I wasn't (a) tired, (b) hallucinating because of tiredness and work, or (c) drunk as a skunk (rare these days). All I've been saying from the start is that the Imperial Commander of a fief - which can include numerous government types, including balkanisation (which is present in the 'fluff') - is someone may nominally or actually integrated into the government of a given world. This individual need not be imposed by the adeptus terra when the world is integrated into the Imperium but may be 'raised' from the local population (governing population, that is). But an Imperial Commander would be present in the 'fief'... ... And, yes, balkanisation is one of those things that is problematic, again... Level of integration of the adeptus terra would vary in relation to the nature of the imposition/raising of the Imperial Commander, as well as the history of the world in question. Sorry for the repetition... Kage
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Apr 3, 2004 16:30:44 GMT -5
Interesting, because that's pretty much the opposite of your opinion the last time we discussed it...
And you are working too hard.
Or rather, posting too hard. Three thousand words, remember?
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Apr 3, 2004 17:18:34 GMT -5
Then something must have intervened since that is the opinion that I have been espousing on this thread and, also, the one that is basically listed on the now defunct "MATs RPG Page" (which will get a revamp when the PhD is finished)... My bad if I was ferschnickled when we talked but I really do have the sneaking suspicion that there was just some miscommunication in terms of certain concepts or terms... or something. Don't think that I could have been that far gone to reverse an opinion which I've been arguing for three years. Kage
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Apr 5, 2004 3:47:14 GMT -5
Wow... let me try to explain my view on the subject, which I'd like to think you'll all agree with. Call me arrogant, but I guess the problem is that with all your fancy English, you invite confusion... 1) All Imperial Worlds have an Imperial Commander. Theoretically, there could be one or two exceptions in the entire Imperium, I suppose, but I don't think we should worry too much about this, nor waste time discussing it. The point is; There is always an Imperial Commander. 2) The Imperial Commander can be given his rank in a number of different ways. The majority of Imperial worlds (by far) choose their own Imperial commander in one way or another, be this by democratic election, hereditary titles or a world-wide spitting contest. Sometimes though, the Imperium raises an Imperial Commander by its own wishes. This is usually when the former Commander screwed up and didn't pay his tithes, ended up dead after a cult rising, or when a new world has recently been brought into the rule of the Imperium. 3) Though the worlds of the Imperium have many, many different forms of government; democracy, olligarchy, dictatorship, or even something that resembles anarchy more than anything else, they all have Imperial Commanders. These Imperial Commanders do not always rule the worlds where they have been appointed, but they do stand responsible to the Imperium in paying their tithes, meaning; if something goes wrong, it's their ass. So even on a world with an olligarcy, where five council members with hereditary titles rule, you still have to elect an Imperial Commander one way or the other, or the Imperium will do it for you. This can be a member of said council, or it can be an independent body. 4) The authority of the Imperial Commander is, in theory, close to unlimited (which is why he can be held responsible if the doo-doo hits the fan). In practice however, it's kind of like the authority of the King of Norway, on some worlds. The King of Norway has the power to veto the government, but he hasn't done it in the past century or so. I imagine the same would be the case on most Imperial worlds where the Imperial Commander does not rule the world, but a council or democratic body does. The bottom line is that all worlds have an Imperial Commander, one way or the other. Proteus, a forgeworld that doesn't really give a hoot about the Administratum unless brought to gunpoint, usually has a Magos Ultima or whatever as its Imperial Commander. Not that it really makes a difference, of course Tryphon didn't really have a government when it was first 'liberated' by the Imperium. The Ministorum were given rule of the planet, with the Priesthood of Tryphon, but they still had to follow the ground rules and elect an Imperial Commander. This is the highest ranking member of the Priesthood, the Pontifex Mundi Tryphon. Tarragona (for a lack of a better name at the moment), which is the capitol of the Proteus subsector (making it the Tarragona subsector henceforth...) has a balkanisation of power between its different regions/ nations. The Imperial Commander is independent from these governments, recruited from the ranks of the Adeptus Administratum. He does not interfere with the ruling of the individual regions / nations, be they democratic republics or monarchies, but since he is responsible for making sure the world conforms to the demands of the Imperium, he does interfere if tithes are not paid, if rebellions rise, etc. See? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Apr 5, 2004 4:39:49 GMT -5
Nothing too surprising and, again, what I've been saying from the get-go but with moderation that integration type will also determine at least in part the nature of the adeptus terra on the world... ... as well as offering a point of integration for Imperial culture, that somewhat nebulous concept that for me must exist in some form otherwise the Imperium would have fragmented a long, long time ago. And now another 3000 words or, if I can manage it, more... Kage
|
|