Radical Inquisitors and the Officio Assassinorum

[kiwitexansfan]

Just a fluff question I have debated amongst myselves.

 

Would a known radical be able to request the use of an assassin from the officio?

 

I have figured DCA being whacky independents would jump on board with a Radical, but would the home office send assassins out in support of a Radical?

[Chengar Qordath]

I would say yes; Radicals are still fully sanctioned Inquisitors after all. The Officio Assassinorum does not care about the Inquisition's internal political squabbles.

 

Known Radicals can still pull in almost all the same resources as a Puritan, with the exception of groups where there is a serious ideological disagreement. Grey Knights would never work with a Xanthist that wants to use the power of Chaos, but probably would not have any issues working with Inquisitors from Radical factions that still maintain an anti-Chaos line.

[number6]

My understanding of the meaning of "radical" is that it means the Inquisition isn't aware of the Inquisitor's heresy. So long as the Inquisition isn't aware of heretical thinking and/or practices, the Inquisitor could requisition whatever s/he wanted.

 

"Known radicals" would almost certainly be stripped of their authority. At a minimum. And most likely be treated with "harshly".

[Verythrax Draconis]

"Known radicals" would almost certainly be stripped of their authority. At a minimum. And most likely be treated with "harshly".

 

Unless their superiors are radicals as well. :)

 

"radicalism" (as puritanism) is in the eye of the beholder.

[Inquisitor Fox]

To paraphrase an old saying... "You're only in trouble if you get caught!"

 

The Inquisition likes results. They always examine how something is done, but that's internal affairs really. If you hide your tracks well enough, well... history is written by the victor, right? :)

[Kaled100]

"Known radicals" would almost certainly be stripped of their authority. At a minimum. And most likely be treated with "harshly".

Being a radical is a long way from being a heretic. It's entirely possible for someone to be a well-known radical and still be a respected member of the Inquisition. For example, there are references to Horusians being among the most proficient and dedicated daemon hunters in the entire Inquisition. Of course, if someone takes their radical views to such an extreme that they are deemed to have crossed the line then one of their peers is likely to have a carta taken out against them - but then it's entirely possible for a puritan to take his view to such an extreme that he crosses the line as well.

 

But back to the Officio Assassinorum - only the High Lords are able to saction the use of an Officio Assassin and the Ordo Sicarius is there to ensure that they are not misused. At the end of the day it would depend on whether those sanctioning and overseeing the deployment of the assassin see the Inquisitor as a radical or a heretic, and as there's no set line between the two, a great deal will depend on the views of those involved.

[GodwynDi]

Kaled pretty much summed up what I was going to say. There is a fine line between being a Radical and being an Heretic. Then there is the wavy grey area of what the Ecclesiarchy sanctions.

 

And what better way for the High Lords to keep track of someone they suspect is wavering than to grant their request to have an Officio Assassinorum agent lent to them?

[Grand Master Tyrak]

"Known radicals" would almost certainly be stripped of their authority. At a minimum. And most likely be treated with "harshly".

Being a radical is a long way from being a heretic.

 

No, but it being common knowledge greatly increases the chances of someone be able to prove it. And if that happens then the reactionaries are likely to take over. It doesn't help them being outnumbered by the Puritans either.

[Kaled100]

No, but it being common knowledge greatly increases the chances of someone be able to prove it.

Prove what? Being a radical doesn't make you a heretic - well, it might in some people's eyes, but there are likely to be others who think what you're doing is fine and yet others who think you're actually rather puritan. If another Inquisitor wants to prosecute you as a heretic then he needs to convince a panel of three (or more) others that you have gone too far and they will pronounce sentence (of course, sometimes this is done after the sentence has been carried out, but an Inquisitor would still have to answer for executing one of his peers).

 

Then there is the wavy grey area of what the Ecclesiarchy sanctions.

The Ecclesiarchy? While Inquisitors are going to follow the Imperial Creed (at least nominally), the Ecclesiarchy doesn't dictate what an Inquisitor is allowed to do.

[GodwynDi]

No, but the Ecclesiarchy determines what is, or is not, Heresy. If an inquisitor crosses that line, you can be sure the other inquisitors will start to pay attention to the fine details of their actions. As Puritan inquisitors are by far the majority, this means an inquisitor that vocally or vibrantly ignores the rules of the Ecclesiarchy is going to be in trouble, fast.

[Verythrax Draconis]

The Ecclesiarchy? While Inquisitors are going to follow the Imperial Creed (at least nominally), the Ecclesiarchy doesn't dictate what an Inquisitor is allowed to do.

 

The Imperial Creed is sanctioned by the Ecclesiarchy, so =I= is bound to persecute based on what Ecclesiarchy says, technically.

[Grand Master Tyrak]

No, but it being common knowledge greatly increases the chances of someone be able to prove it

.

Prove what? Being a radical doesn't make you a heretic - well, it might in some people's eyes, but there are likely to be others who think what you're doing is fine and yet others who think you're actually rather puritan.

 

Not always. Proven Xanthites don't really stand a chance, and I would assume the same applies to Isstvaanians and Horusians too. Recongregators might get away with a bit more though, since they've not crossed into Isstvaanian practices of active destabilisation. Frankly, they're the only ones I can think of who would stand a chance of getting away with it if they were caught putting their philosophy into practice.

 

It's known as Radicalism for a reason. ;)

[Kaled100]

Proven Xanthites don't really stand a chance, and I would assume the same applies to Isstvaanians and Horusians too.

You're obviously far more puritanical than me - and consequently have a more puritanical view of Inquisitorial philosophies than I do. Xanthism is one of the oldest Inquisitorial philosophies and has endured for a reason - they're not all daemon-sword wielding heretics; they study warp lore to see how it can be used to serve mankind in much the way that the Imperium already uses the warp for travel, communication etc. Some Xanthites take their beliefs to extremes and they're the ones who're (often rightly) regarded as heretics.

 

And as it says in the Inquisitor rulebook, while some/many/most radicals would be considered heretics by the vast majority of Imperial citizens for their behaviour, as a whole the Inquisition recognises that there are powerful arguments to support their views and methodology, and it is those few, whether puritan or radical, that take their views to extremes (such as the afore-mentioned daemon-sword wielding Xanthites) who are the real danger. The Inquisition values diversity of thought and initiative over mindless adherence to rules - it wants reasoning men with the courage to enforce their convictions. Hence even known radicals are not necessarily in any danger of being declared heretics.

 

Thus, as I mentioned before, although many would be appalled at Horusians views on resurrectionism, but their arcane knoweldge makes them extremely potent daemon hunters - something for which they're respected.

 

It's known as Radicalism for a reason. :lol:

True, but it's not known as heresy for a reason - the two are quite distinct.

[Skyhawk]

Prove what? Being a radical doesn't make you a heretic - well, it might in some people's eyes, but there are likely to be others who think what you're doing is fine and yet others who think you're actually rather puritan.

 

And here it purely depends on wich side has strength in numbers.

[Kaled100]

And here it purely depends on wich side has strength in numbers.

But there aren't only two sides - there are many puritan schools of thought and they can be as opposed to one another as puritans are to radicals. The same goes for the radicals. And of course there are some puritans whose philosophy is closer to that of supposed radicals than it is to other puritans.

 

Again, I have to say I dislike the whole radical/puritan thing - it's a gross over-simplification of the extremely complex web of Inquisitorial factions.

[Verythrax Draconis]

And here it purely depends on wich side has strength in numbers.

But there aren't only two sides - there are many puritan schools of thought and they can be as opposed to one another as puritans are to radicals. The same goes for the radicals. And of course there are some puritans whose philosophy is closer to that of supposed radicals than it is to other puritans.

 

Again, I have to say I dislike the whole radical/puritan thing - it's a gross over-simplification of the extremely complex web of Inquisitorial factions.

 

Even the factions are over-simplifications, IMO. In Eisenhorn, Quixos consider Eisenhorn a radical, just because he does undercover investigations! Abd before people jump in my neck saying that BL books are not necessarily canon, it's not my point. I'm pointing this example cause it simply makes sense. Every inquisitor have a different view on what he would judge right or wrong on doing his work - and it got even worse when we take in cosideration that they are the ones that judge, not to be judged.

[Kaled100]

Even the factions are over-simplifications, IMO.

I agree - it's better to look at Inquisitors as individuals rather than just stick labels on them. Unfortunately the 40k codices pretty much encourage people to do just that. E.g. puritans get Grey Knights, radicals get daemonhosts. It's a horrid simplification done for purposes of army selection rather than as a reflection of the background - if you really want to get into the background of the Inquisition, Inquisitor and Dark Heresy are the place to go, not the 40k codices.

[number6]

Even the factions are over-simplifications, IMO.

I agree - it's better to look at Inquisitors as individuals rather than just stick labels on them. Unfortunately the 40k codices pretty much encourage people to do just that. E.g. puritans get Grey Knights, radicals get daemonhosts. It's a horrid simplification done for purposes of army selection rather than as a reflection of the background - if you really want to get into the background of the Inquisition, Inquisitor and Dark Heresy are the place to go, not the 40k codices.

Oh, don't go blaming GW for our propensity to categorize and label. Scientists have conclusively proven that's what we humans are wired to do. :angry:

[Kaled100]

Oh, don't go blaming GW for our propensity to categorize and label. Scientists have conclusively proven that's what we humans are wired to do. :)

Good point - but the background in Dark Heresy & Inquisitor gives us far more labels to work with! :angry:

[Verythrax Draconis]

Oh, don't go blaming GW for our propensity to categorize and label. Scientists have conclusively proven that's what we humans are wired to do. :)

Good point - but the background in Dark Heresy & Inquisitor gives us far more labels to work with! :angry:

 

Well, can't really blame them for that. After all, it's a game, and even with rules usually detailed like this, we still find holes :) so, for the GAME part it's needed.

 

For fluff, obviously the answer is different, or more subtle, at least. But I concur, they could at least in the fluff pages of the codex try to make this subtlety more apparent.

[DinoDoc]

Oh, don't go blaming GW for our propensity to categorize and label. Scientists have conclusively proven that's what we humans are wired to do. :)

Good point - but the background in Dark Heresy & Inquisitor gives us far more labels to work with! :angry:

I found the Libricar faction the most amusing. So Puritan other Puritans consider you to be Radical. I have to agree with the others her as well. Being a Radical in and of itself isn't going to get you condemned and executed as a heretic (Obviously not a hard and fast rule with Istvaanians and similar factions). In fact if we alow Dark Heresy to be canon, only one strain of Radicalism in and of itself has been declared to mark its followers and thier servants as excommunicate which is the Phaenonite faction.

[kiwitexansfan]

So short answer is that I can feel free to fluffily include imperial assassins in my 'pure' radical lists.

 

Thanks, that does open up a bit more list flexibility

[Chengar Qordath]

Oh, don't go blaming GW for our propensity to categorize and label. Scientists have conclusively proven that's what we humans are wired to do. ;)

Good point - but the background in Dark Heresy & Inquisitor gives us far more labels to work with! :)

Very true; having half a dozen major factions and a lot more minor ones to use as lables gives us a lot more flexibility than trying to work within a simple Puritan-Radical dichotomy.

 

I'll provide an example of why the Puritan-Radical dichotomy doesn't really work: one of the Inquisitors is Ordo Malleus and has a very hard-line anti-Chaos position. At first, that would make her seem like a Puritan - except that she feels that Chaos is such a serious threat that limited co-operation with Xenos against the forces of Chaos is necessary, which is a Radical postion. Simply put, the dichotomy doesn't work because lots of Inquisitors adhere to a mix of Puritan and Radical ideas. That's not to mention that the dividing line between Puritan and Radical is more than a little subjective; the worst of the Monodominants are so fanatical that they think even using Astropaths and Navigators is enough to qualify one as a Radical.

 

As far as I am concerned, when it comes to requisitioning resources an Inquisitor is an Inquisitor. Most people outside the Inquisition itself are not even aware of how much factional squabbling there is within the Inquisition, let alone what the dividing lines between the different philosophies are. To most outsiders, all Inquisitors are the same.

[Magnus Thane]

If there is a codex Inquisition or follow up codices for the DH and WH... i'm curious what tasty fluff will pop up in there. Theming your forces as pure/radical and other shades might be interesting if Puritans and Radicals both get more variety of their own to play with.

[Piousservant]

Hey Kaled - how are things, the Conclave still a haven of heresy and misanthropy? :lol:

 

 

It's worth remembering that the codex is firstly simplified for the benefit of the game and secondly is about Inquisitors on the battlefield. Which means that the vast shades of grey about Inquisitorial philosophy aren't that relevant.

 

Because the real thing that defines Inquisitors (whether splitting them by "puritan/radical" or by factions) is political/philosophical, the difference between Inquisitors when we're looking at them on the scale of a battlefield is minimal. As I think everyone has agreed above - not all "radicals" wield Daemonswords afterall.

 

A "radical" could potentially even fight alongside Grey Knights (as long as he doesn't have a Daemonhost with him that is, since then he would understandably run the risk of getting smacked on the head with a Nemesis force weapon). I've always looked on the rules not as Puritan = Grey Knights, Radicals = Daemonhosts but as GK =/= Daemonhosts, if that helps.

 

I wouldn't expect (or necessarily want) more different puritan/radical goodies when/if a new Inquisition codex materialises. Personally those differences are best left in the background/fluff. I'd much rather see more options for retinues and to encourage non-psychic Inquisitors since the current codex seems to result in almost every Inquisitor being a psyker.

 

On topic about the Officio - I'd agree that being a radical wouldn't prevent an Inquisitor from getting the support of an Assassin but I suspect that it would be a particularly brazen Inquisitor who openly used Daemonhosts around an Assassin, since that is dangerously close to (some, of course, would say well over) "the line" and that might not bode well if that got back to the High Lords - the Inquisitor might find himself the Assassins next target perhaps...