Author Topic: Monodominant sub-factions  (Read 8601 times)

Offline Draco Ferox

  • Inquisitor
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
Re: Monodominant sub-factions
« Reply #15 on: February 25, 2012, 03:10:40 PM »
Quote
I think I missed that then, I was under the impression that factions are just something inquisitors can be divided into. Many would hold a set of beliefs, without ever even having met anyone with the same set of beliefs. For instance, xanthites are a name given to inquisitors who belief that the weapons of the enemy can be turned against them. It would not be necessary for any individual to have joined any kind of club to hold those beliefs and be called one.

That is my view as well, but I view the so-called "purists" as a sort of clique within the inquisition who do not admit members until they have had their purity proven beyond doubt. The name would show thier belief, but like the Masons of today, even if you believe the same things as they do, you will not necessarily be a part of the organisation, and will probably have to undergo some sort of rite before your induction into the ranks.
Be polite. Be efficient. Have a plan to kill everyone you meet.

Offline Dolnikan

  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 1019
Re: Monodominant sub-factions
« Reply #16 on: February 25, 2012, 03:28:45 PM »
That seems like a good idea for a kind of 'club'. The tests would have to be very rigourous to prevent heretics from entering. They are everywhere after all.
Circles of the wise My attempt at writing something, please comment on it if you have any advise.

Offline Kaled

  • Illuminatus Maximus
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 2131
  • Fabricator-General
Re: Monodominant sub-factions
« Reply #17 on: February 25, 2012, 04:51:28 PM »
It sounds to me like the Purists are more like a cell or cabal who share one belief than a faction in their own right. Maybe use the name 'Annihilists' for the name of the extremist Monodominant faction, and Purists for a particular grouping of Inquisitors who share that belief and who have formed their own cell/club/clique. Just a thought...
I like to remember things my own way... Not necessarily the way they happened.

Inquisitor - Blood Bowl - Malifaux - Fairy Meat

Offline krenshar

  • Interrogator
  • **
  • Posts: 84
Re: Monodominant sub-factions
« Reply #18 on: February 25, 2012, 05:42:15 PM »
'Excisionist' might work for that second faction, Draco as excision is a surgical term for the removal of (among other things) a tumour.  Though shortening it to 'Excisist' sounds better to me.

While a touch off-topic, I'd love to see the monodominant sourcebook written as a series of in-character commentaries on Inquisitor Goldo's original treatise.  Rather than a single faction history, you'd instead get the personal views and recollections of various monodominants - demonstrating how varied and shades-of-grey even the most seemingly black-and-white of factions can be.  One writer might be describing the sub-factions put forward in the OP, only for another author to denounce them all as imposters and heretics in the very next article.  And from the player side of things, you get to see some varied interpretations of the faction that are coming up here.

Back to the i-c, I'm sure that there's more than one Xanthite who thinks that Goldo was right in all but methodology and could contribute too.  And probably several Istvaanians who'd say they do just to stir things up.

Offline Draco Ferox

  • Inquisitor
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
Re: Monodominant sub-factions
« Reply #19 on: February 25, 2012, 06:17:35 PM »
I think excisionist quite a ring to it, and I prefer excisionist to exisist. To me, exisist sounds like someone who goes round kicking out ghosts/bad machine spirits. I would prefer a sourcebook which was not made up entirely of oopinion articles, though including quite a few wouldn't hurt, and would help to tie the book to the shades-of-grey of the inquisition, as Kaled said.
Be polite. Be efficient. Have a plan to kill everyone you meet.

Offline Dolnikan

  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 1019
Re: Monodominant sub-factions
« Reply #20 on: February 25, 2012, 07:48:44 PM »
Opinioned pieces are always a good thing. Excisionist has a nice ring, annihilist would be a good name for purist, because that sounds a bit too simple in my mind. Some 'actual' quotes from Goldo would add a nice touch as well I think.
Circles of the wise My attempt at writing something, please comment on it if you have any advise.

Offline Draco Ferox

  • Inquisitor
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
Re: Monodominant sub-factions
« Reply #21 on: February 28, 2012, 10:02:03 PM »
Well, I have just had a flick through the sourcebook looking for inquisitor Goldo, and found that the authored the first treaty on monodominism. I'd like to incorporate this, so rather than having the "true" monodominants, I'd like to go with Kaled's suggestion, and name them the Goldoians. Anahilists, purists and excisionists seem to make up a good names for their respective proposed factions.
      As for the faction that uses fear, I'm not sure whether this is technically correct (conjugate the verb!), but Timorians sounds like it might fit, as I gogle translated fear into latin to make up for having never learned latin in school, or been bothered to learn it outside.

I reckon that maybe Goldo's original treaty could have been copied out by his acoloytes and contacts within the inquisition, but parts of it been either changed/lost/mistranslated, which along with the ambiguity associated with human interpretation, would have led to the factions seen today.

The central tenets of the monodominant faction could be summed up thus:
1. It is the right of humanity to rule the galaxy, and this is the will of He-on-Terra.
2. It is the foremost duty of the inquisition of carry out the will of He-on-Terra.
3. Humanity must rule the galaxy alone.
4. Any who will not yield to the divine right of humanity must be destroyed.
5. No opposition to His will may be tolerated. Failure to comply means death.

If you feel I am missing anything, and/or would have any other tenets to add, please do so.
Be polite. Be efficient. Have a plan to kill everyone you meet.

Offline krenshar

  • Interrogator
  • **
  • Posts: 84
Re: Monodominant sub-factions
« Reply #22 on: February 28, 2012, 10:54:59 PM »
The tenets are good; simplistic and very definite, just like the monodominant stereotype.
I especially like the way rule 1's use of 'right' instead of 'destiny' which seems to be the common line.

My impression is that the Monodominants' intolerance stems from the pessimistic conviction that humanity will only rise to rule the galaxy if absolutely everything else dies.
So myself, I'd change 4. to read something like "Every mutant, heretic and alien is an obstacle to the rule of Humanity." (leaving out mention of daemons as I like how the tenets as you've written them could be widely published by the faction, as appropriate to so overt a group)

And thank you for spelling tenet correctly - it shouldn't bug me so much when people write 'tenant', but it does.  You've made an inveterate pedant's evening.

Offline Dolnikan

  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 1019
Re: Monodominant sub-factions
« Reply #23 on: February 29, 2012, 10:27:21 AM »
These tenets sound like the monodominants. I would keep them as they are because mention of specifiec enemies could vary between groups and publications. That could add some nice ambiguity in the most black-and-white faction.
Circles of the wise My attempt at writing something, please comment on it if you have any advise.

Offline MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5023
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: Monodominant sub-factions
« Reply #24 on: February 29, 2012, 04:03:23 PM »
So myself, I'd change 4.
No, I think I agree with Draco's verson. As it is, any of 3, 4 or 5 can be interpreted in that pessimistic, hardline fashion.

3) If you decide that mutants or psykers don't count as human, they have no right to rule the galaxy.
4) If you assume the "divine right of humanity" to be unmutated, psychically-neutral and completely brainwashed by the Imperial cult, anyone who can't conform to that, willingly or unwillingly, is forfeit.
5) Just call anyone you don't like "an obstacle to His will".

However, the way he's written it allows a wider interpretation of Monodominants, which is exactly what the Sourcebooks try to do - break the moulds and the stereotypes of "Faction X must be like this".

As it is, Monodominants get relatively little play time because most players (understandably) don't find the "Shoot first, don't bother with the questions" mindset particularly fun to play for more than a short while. If we can widen the faction slightly (and as it's had since the 33rd millennium to do so, it will have widened), we might stop seeing "He's an Amalathian" quite so often.
S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles

Offline Draco Ferox

  • Inquisitor
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
Re: Monodominant sub-factions
« Reply #25 on: February 29, 2012, 09:32:45 PM »
Marco has hit the nail on the head with regards to my intentions. I deliberately kept the wording vague because nothing is more fun than a load of people disagreeing over the same thing (case in point, the bible), and just as the treatise of Mount Amalath was subject to various interpretations, so too should be the founding principles of the monodominant faction. I deliberately wrote “yield to humanity” because of the faction known as the subjugationists that we were discussing.
Krenshar, I try to ensure that I always spell my words correctly, as well as constructing my sentences well. I am not a fan of 1337 speak, and use it rarely, and in a mocking and sarcastic manner if I do. This is strangely pedantic for a sixteen year old, but the amount of people my age who cannot spell words properly, or use words such as there, their and they’re interchangeably really annoys me.

Anyway, onto the main content of this post. About an hour ago at the time of posting, I was walking home, and I was writing on my ipod. I wrote what I consider to be a decent short essay, though opinions on that may vary, and I wanted to share it for criticism and review. It ably sums up my doubts about the monodominant faction, and I consider it my most poignant work to date. It is transcribed below, with the only modifiactions being spelling corrections.
Quote
On the nature of Monodominism

Almost every citizen of the imperium subscribes to the view that humanity is the strongest species in the galaxy and that it is their right to rule it. Most of this is propoganda, spread by the Imperium to keep the massed ignorant and obedient, but equally to spare them from the horror of the uncaring universe. Even those who dismiss the first point still believe the second. A human that would like to peacefully co-exist with an alien is rare indeed, and the nature of most of the species in the galaxy prevents this coexistence (orks fighting for the heck of it, dark eldar having to kill to survive, tau belief that all must work toward the greater good, necrons hate all living things, tyrannids try to eat everything, and the forces of chaos attempt to subject the entire galaxy to their insane whims), so it is little wonder than the imperium is so xenophobic. To this end, most, if not all, of the inquisition are simply monodominants in some form or other. They may not agree with each other's methods, but ultimately, they all support the power of the imperium. For example, Istvaanians are monodominants who believe that conflict strengthens humanity, Recongregators are monodominants who believe that restructuring the imperium will lead it to new glories, Xanthites are monodominants who use the weapons of the enemy against them, Thorians are monodominants who try to resurrect the Emperor, so that He can make the imperium strong again, and Amalathians are monodominants who believe that the imperium is stronger if it does not change unless necessary. In this way, all but a few highly unusual (and heretical) inquisitors are monodominants in some form or another. They may denounce each other and have different ideas, methodologies and principles, but they are united by the overarching belief that humanity can and should rule the galaxy. This has been drilled into them from the time that they were children, and though the reality is different to the propaganda of the Ecclisiarchy and Munitorum, they still retain their childhood certainties in the divine right of humanity to rule the galaxy in His name, and that this is His will.
Be polite. Be efficient. Have a plan to kill everyone you meet.

Offline Dolnikan

  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 1019
Re: Monodominant sub-factions
« Reply #26 on: February 29, 2012, 09:40:39 PM »
It looks very good, except for the propoganda. It is a logical conclusion which leads inevitably to a single question. If it is not this core set of beliefs that marks out a monodominant, what is it? Perhaps monodominant are those who use the extreme and public methods some of them are famed for? Perhaps they are those who do not see lesser evils, merely evils which all must be destroyed?

I hope that my spelling does is not overly bad, english is my third language after all.
Circles of the wise My attempt at writing something, please comment on it if you have any advise.

Offline Draco Ferox

  • Inquisitor
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
Re: Monodominant sub-factions
« Reply #27 on: February 29, 2012, 10:11:45 PM »
Well, you're doing better than me. I speak no languages besides english to any sort of standard, and from your writing, you wouldn't know it wasn't your first language. Hell, I know a fair few adults who can't spell as well as you.

I am not sure what a monodominant is, but I believe that one would be marked out by intolerance of anyone not "normal", their use of more extreme methods in their investigations, and generally upholding the generaly view of the majority of the Imperium. I quite like the idea of an inquisitor who actually believes the propaganda until he is violently disabused by his first contact with any form of xenos.
Be polite. Be efficient. Have a plan to kill everyone you meet.

Offline Dolnikan

  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 1019
Re: Monodominant sub-factions
« Reply #28 on: March 01, 2012, 02:43:46 PM »
Many aliens in the background do meet expectations. They are quite unfriendly after all...

I think that the defining trait of monodominants is their intollerance and moral strength. They refuse to use anything that is tainted, even if it would be easier for them. A monodominant for instance would rather fight unarmed than take up a tainted weapon, even if it is a simple metal bar that was used by the unclean.
Circles of the wise My attempt at writing something, please comment on it if you have any advise.

Offline Kaled

  • Illuminatus Maximus
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 2131
  • Fabricator-General
Re: Monodominant sub-factions
« Reply #29 on: March 01, 2012, 04:35:14 PM »
I disagree, I believe their defining traits are their belief in the superiority of mankind and their intolerance of everyone else. However, I can imagine a hard-line Monodominant who believes that since mankind is manifestly destined to be the dominant force in the universe and will only achieve that by wiping out all other species, it is their right to subjugate the denizens of the warp and use them as weapons if that will help them to bring about mankind's destiny sooner. And I'm sure there are Monodominants whose methods would cause some observers to label them as Recongregators or Istvaanians too...

But that's the great thing about Inquisitorial philosophies - there's so much room for disagreement and conflict.
I like to remember things my own way... Not necessarily the way they happened.

Inquisitor - Blood Bowl - Malifaux - Fairy Meat