|
Post by Kage2020 on Apr 15, 2004 10:04:07 GMT -5
I still would like to point out that I dislike the concept of the Ordo being universal. I see no reason why any Inquisitor *has* to belong to any Ordo at all; striking out on his own or with members of his Cell being perfectly acceptable; if viewed with some scepticism by his less wayward peers. I'm sorry, but I find no conceptual or 'fluff' basis, really, for this approach. In an organisation which has the fundamental powers of the Inquisition to view individuals as necessarily crossing over jurisdictional boundaries and stepping on so many toes... No, I'm sorry. While I can see some of the power in this type of organisation I cannot see it as applying to the Inquisition. I see Ordos being more of a structure founded for a specific purpose then dissolved when the task is done. In the cases of the major Ordos, their task will probably never be fulfilled and thus will never be disbanded. That sounds more like the Chamber idea. So again I'm going to have to disagree here. I'm also not keen on having a strong hierarchy in the Inquisition. As all Inquisitors are nominally equal in rank by their very charter, overall 'command' is achieved by consensus... All pigs are equal, etc. A defined structure is presence in the Inquisition. rather than by the application of 'politics'. Yet such political activity is seen in the Inquisition represented in the BL novels. An Inquisitorial leader is one best suited to doing the work, rather than one most respected for his expertise. Sounds suspiciously like a meritocracy. Kage
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Apr 15, 2004 10:15:37 GMT -5
Your approach begs the questions:
Who grants an Inquisitor power over his peers? What grounds do these peers have for accepting it, considering their own priveliged background? Should they not accept it, how should a leading Inquisitor enforce order? Would this not then prove counterproductive to the Inquisition as a whole, then coming back to the idea of who would grant such power with knowledge that it is probably meaningless...
with all Inquisitors holding equal authority over the Imperium at large, I can't see how anything other than a consent-based meritocracy would be feasible.
|
|
|
Post by Tynesh on Apr 16, 2004 3:46:54 GMT -5
The Inquisitors are given their power over everyone else by the God-Emperor of Mankind. They work in the name of Him on Terra and pursue what course of action they percieve as being the best for Humanity and the Immortal Emperor.
This is where the different factions come into play, where the Emperor's best interests are determined on a personal or group level.
The heads of the Ordos are possibly the most knowledgable and respected within each Ordo, hence being nominated (I think Eisenhorn Trilogy points at a successorship being announced) for the role. The beliefs of an Ordo Master may influence practice within the Ordo but the nature of the multi-factional Inquisition means that too much of one belief draws attention, and therefore the balance can be reset with a new head. This means that corruption within the Ordos is nigh on impossible due to the very mandate of every Inquisitor, that is why only small cells or single Inquisitors ever fall to Chaos.
The Inquisiton is monloithic, deeprooted and highly traditional organisation. Codes of conduct will have existed for millennia, such a long-standing icon of the Imperium would command respect and piety from Inquisitors.
Each Inquisitor does all for the Emperor and no one else, if he does (or doesn't do something command to do) then he does it believing he is doing the Empeor's work. Therefore the Inquisition is kept in place and in line.
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Apr 16, 2004 5:38:00 GMT -5
I said peers, Tynesh. Other Inquisitors. Not the common public; it's clear that all Inquisitors hold that authority by default. Which is part of the problem.
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Apr 16, 2004 6:31:51 GMT -5
Who grants an Inquisitor power over his peers? The Emperor. The Inquisitors have full power, but not full immunity.
What grounds do these peers have for accepting it, considering their own priveliged background? It doesn't matter if they accept it. If a group of Inquisitors find another Inquisitor guilty of heresy, he will die.
Should they not accept it, how should a leading Inquisitor enforce order? I'm sure that this is a strictly theoretical issue, and not really a realistic issue. It's like... what should happen if the loyal Primarchs came back and declared war against the Imperium? What power would the High Lords then have over the Adeptus Astartes? None.
I guess the answer to your question is that if a single Inquisitor-Lord makes a decision that none of his subordinate Inquisitors agree with, they will ignore his orders and start asking him questions instead. If it's the minority that do not accept the judgement of the majority, then the will of the majority is forced through with violence.
This is what the Inquisiton Wars teaches us.
Would this not then prove counterproductive to the Inquisition as a whole, then coming back to the idea of who would grant such power with knowledge that it is probably meaningless...? The Imperium is far from a perfect system. Obviously, there are holes, which could lead to its downfall.
The authority of the Emperor is unrivalled. The Inquisition speaks the will of the Emperor, but so does the Saints and the Ecclessiarch. What if an Inquisitor disagrees with a living Saint? What if a living Saint disagrees with the High Lord Ecclessiarch? What if the High Lord Ecclessiarch disagrees with the Inquisitor? What if the living Saint orders the body of the Emperor to be destroyed, in order to allow his ressurrection? These are all questions to which there are no right or wrong answers to what could and should happen.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Apr 16, 2004 6:46:25 GMT -5
Ultimately authority is always by consensus, and the same with the Inquisition. What gives the Inquisitor the power to do what they do? Well, what gives a judge the power to sentence criminals? Ultimately the structure of society and the fact that the population gives and accepts that authority. The Emperor created the Inquisition and, presumably the structure of that organisation. So what gives one Inquisitor the right to have authority over another? The structure imposed by the Emperor... What puts him into that position? What puts any individual in authority over another, regardless of the authority that they might enjoy over others? A structured Inquisition is entirely possible and, more importantly, probable. The original 'fluff' on the ordo malleus defines this and I would severely doubt that any act during the Age of Apostasy which forced the revelation/opening of the Inquisition would have allowed an anarchic structure. Kage
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Apr 16, 2004 6:59:35 GMT -5
Right. Let that be the conclusion of that discussion, but hopefully not the thread. If we could get back to the Inquisitorial presence in the Anargo, detailing the individual Ordos, Inquisitorial headquarters, space ships, etc, that would be most constructive.
As an aside, the latest White Dwarf confirms that the Ordo Hereticus has taken up the former duties of the Ordo Malleus. Graham McNeil and Andy Hoare say that the Hereticus is the "Watcher of watchers" (but not limiited to this, of course), whilst the Ordo Malleus are the Shining Paladins that go face to face with daemons.
Makes sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Apr 16, 2004 7:25:50 GMT -5
Oh dear lord... they're really making a mess of things, aren't they? The Inqusition is now 'fluffy bunny rabbits'. Well, that has for me confirmed the need for something darker in their 'structure'. Kage
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Apr 16, 2004 7:34:30 GMT -5
*fumes*
Oh well. I guess I'll just shut up and concentrate on other things. Imperial authority in action, here...
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Apr 16, 2004 13:56:14 GMT -5
Don't worry about it. I would personally prefer to use my interpretation of the Inquisition, but that's not possible. Of course, there is always the introduction of some new aspect. Hence my "Inner Inquisition" (version of the old-style ordo malleus) becomes a secret society-type thing... I'm sure that non- ordo Inquisitors could be included, perhaps at the level of 'journeyman' or something? Kage
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Apr 16, 2004 14:45:21 GMT -5
I understand that it's frustrating to have good arguments, only to be dismissed on basis of questionable fluff. As for the Ordo Hereticus taking on the roll of the Ordo Malleus... well, making a mess of things or making more sense of things is a matter of opinion. As has been mentioned, the Ordo Hereticus is the Ordo that crosses over into the other two Ordos (Malleus and Xenos), so it makes a lot more sense for the Ordo Hereticus to be the Watcher of Watchers than the Ordo Malleus, with Malleus being concerned strictly with things related to daemons and the warp. I would also like to restructure the Inquisition however, as well as come up with some firm laws or rules on inter-Inquisition judgement and authority, but... we're hamstrung by the fluff, and this is one of the things that we can't really change, otherwise we'll never hear the end of it. Coming up with an interpretation of ork nature, or adding to the Adeptus Mechanicus or the idea of a Merchant fleet is one thing. Simply changing very recent fluff is another But let's not lose courage. Let's make the best of it, hm?
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Apr 16, 2004 14:47:24 GMT -5
Could always say 'STFU' to anyone who argues and qualify it with "Well our ideas are better, non?"
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Apr 16, 2004 15:01:59 GMT -5
We could. But if people want to include their Inquisitors in the Anargo sector, for RPGing, fiction, or whatever, and we have a radically different image of the Inquisition.... that'll create problems, no?
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Apr 16, 2004 15:24:25 GMT -5
Oh...interesting point...
We're supposed to be M39, right?
=]I[= is M41. Two thousand years is a lot of time in an organisation with members in the thousands.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Apr 16, 2004 15:25:00 GMT -5
Could always say 'STFU' to anyone who argues and qualify it with "Well our ideas are better, non?" Oh dear. To reiterate, however, my own interpretation of the Inquisition is something you would find kind of interesting, Sojourner. It's <gasp> basically the same as yours. All Inquisitors are of the 'Outer Order', their function defined by specific events and/or interests. There are no " ordo"'s per se excepting, of course, the Inner and Outer... I've always preferred this since it harks back to the original Inquisition rather than the "fluffy bunny" approach which I see with the modern ordo system and, as CELS points out, the 'shining knight' syndrome which is evidenced no only with the ordo malleuys (oh how the mighty have fallen) and also the adeptus astartes. But that's not the point. While I would just love to enforce this version of the Inquisition, the current 'fluff' would really make it far too problematic. Thus we are left with the ordo system, that there are 'leaders' of the Inquisition and varying ranks beyond just status-through-experience (meritocracy, etc.). It's not that I don't agree with you. My own (maybe older) interpretation would be consistent with yours. I just don't think that it stands up in any way to the recent 'fluff'. Kage
|
|