Radicals

[Captain Idaho]

Seriously, if you haven't read Eisenhorn, I would highly suggest it for it pretty much parallels to this thread of radicalism, thorianism, puritianism, etc. Sometimes, the job needs to be done orthodox, or unorthodox, for the Inquisition. However, you can bet your pretty behind the other inquisitors will be hunting you down, regardless of which point of view you hold.

 

I have read it. The only time I felt Eisenhorn was justified in using a Daemon Host was

against the Warlord Titan because of the harm to would do to the populace, but even then it wouldn't destroy the Imperium if he died at that time.

 

 

And the potential damage done by allowing Churebael to carry on in the Imperium is not worth the saving of a planet.

 

The bigger the picture you look at the more Radicalism becomes the lazy man's way at getting the job done, in my opinion.

[Validar]

First of all I agree 100% on the Eisenhorn thing. If you havn't read it yet, get your hands on it and. start. reading!

 

Second of all I think that there is a touch to this debate that you're all overlooking: What exactly is radicalism?

 

One question is if the Inquisition should have or needs radical thinkers - another one entirely is what exactly the radical thinking is.

 

Where is the limit? Is it radical to summon a deamon to combat another deamon? Is it radical to summon a deamon to kill it? Is it radical to work alongside Eldar? Is it radical to use Eldar weapons? Is it radical to employ Psyckers in your service? etc.

 

I think the answers would diverse greatly depending on who you ask. The Imperium's dogma is wide (vague?) enough to contain this apparant paradox. Heck, just think of something like the psyckers: They are warp-touched mutants and should be abhorred as such in accordance with imperial teachings - yet the imperium depends heavily on them for space travel, amongst other things.

 

To sum up I think the problem lies in the undefined grey-zone between puritan and radical. Some hard-line puritans thinks that psyckers is downright heresy, some think that talking to an Eldar is in no way radical, while others see the deamon binding as something that simply has to be done to save the imperium from an even greater evil, giving them no choice but to employ it.

[Chengar Qordath]

Generally speaking, I would say that the best way to define what is and is not Radical is to look at the major Radical and Puritan factions. There's a pretty large variety of opinions within said factions, but it give you a decent idea of where the ideological lines can be drawn.

 

To answer your specific questions, working alongside and/or binding daemons seems to be pretty universally regarded as Radical; the daemon can only be destroyed. Summoning a Daemon in order to kill it would be pointless, since by most accounts all that killing a Daemon does is send it right back to the Warp. Working alongside the Eldar does seem to be something of a grey area; the Imperium has openly allied with the Eldar in the face of larger threats (such as during the Gothic War) but such collaboration tends to be temporary and need-based. Working with the Eldar only becomes a problem when the Inquisitor gets too close to them, and that can be a bit subjective.. Xenotech can only be used if it is properly examined and sanctioned by a high-ranking tech-priest and/or Inquisitor beforehand (nobody wants a repeat of what happened to Fulgrim). Everyone other than the craziest Monodominants will accept the use of sanctioned psykers, and even the Monodominants use Astropaths and Navigators.

[xa0s]

First of all I agree 100% on the Eisenhorn thing. If you havn't read it yet, get your hands on it and. start. reading!

 

Is it radical to employ Psyckers in your service? etc.

 

I think the answers would diverse greatly depending on who you ask. The Imperium's dogma is wide (vague?) enough to contain this apparant paradox. Heck, just think of something like the psyckers: They are warp-touched mutants and should be abhorred as such in accordance with imperial teachings - yet the imperium depends heavily on them for space travel, amongst other things.

 

I'd like to address the psyker issue. I have a hard time agreeing with the Emperor during the Thousand Sons in terms of his chastising Magnus for employment of usage of psychic ability, however the Emperor himself is a psyker! I just find it not without a great sense of irony. Sure, I understand the Emperor decree the entire human race is not ready to be able to use psychic abilities within, despite the heavy usage of the astro-navigators, etc.

 

Therefore with that in mind, I am quite certain it trickles down to the Inquisition organization, and it goes hand to hand with the dogma of the teaching on what is purtian and what is radicalism, and so forth.

 

As for the Eisenhorn book, Eisenhorn himself has debate the Thorism, Amathelian (spelling?), Puritan, and so forth. It does convey a better picture of the different dogma's of the Inquisition.

[xa0s]

I have read it. The only time I felt Eisenhorn was justified in using a Daemon Host was

against the Warlord Titan because of the harm to would do to the populace, but even then it wouldn't destroy the Imperium if he died at that time.

 

 

And the potential damage done by allowing Churebael to carry on in the Imperium is not worth the saving of a planet.

 

The bigger the picture you look at the more Radicalism becomes the lazy man's way at getting the job done, in my opinion.

 

I would say I disagree with that opinion of yours, because a man (woman) can be only driven to the extreme and be given a hard choice on what's the best way to save the Imperium (i.e. wipe out the entire planet to save billions of people of the whole galaxy or not, etc).

 

However, I would say I can agree with you to disagree. B)

 

Of course, there -ARE- inquisitors who are... lazy and declare heretic to whoever he/she decree to be ... an abomination.

[greatcrusade08]

Generally speaking, I would say that the best way to define what is and is not Radical is to look at the major Radical and Puritan factions. There's a pretty large variety of opinions within said factions, but it give you a decent idea of where the ideological lines can be drawn.

 

good point, to some the puritans of old were deemed 'radical' by some.. again it alkl depend on how you interpret the world and whatnot.

Personally i see things as they were in D&D (bit sad but easier to explain).. i made the perfect paladin, fought to the death to save the little ladies gold necklace from bandits even though a thief in the party could have stolen it back with no real effort.

[Celestin]

I'd like to address the psyker issue. I have a hard time agreeing with the Emperor during the Thousand Sons in terms of his chastising Magnus for employment of usage of psychic ability, however the Emperor himself is a psyker! I just find it not without a great sense of irony. Sure, I understand the Emperor decree the entire human race is not ready to be able to use psychic abilities within, despite the heavy usage of the astro-navigators, etc.

 

Therefore with that in mind, I am quite certain it trickles down to the Inquisition organization, and it goes hand to hand with the dogma of the teaching on what is purtian and what is radicalism, and so forth.

 

As for the Eisenhorn book, Eisenhorn himself has debate the Thorism, Amathelian (spelling?), Puritan, and so forth. It does convey a better picture of the different dogma's of the Inquisition.

 

Um, I always thought the issue was sorcery, not use of psychic abilities. Sorcery is used for pretty much anything/everything except natural psychic abilities. For example,

Zahariel's terrorsight ability

would be an example of natural psychic ability, which he cannot really -not- do. There's a clear difference between an astropath having a natural ability to send/receive telepathic messages and a sorcerer performing a ritual to bind a familiar to himself...

[xa0s]

Um, I always thought the issue was sorcery, not use of psychic abilities. Sorcery is used for pretty much anything/everything except natural psychic abilities. For example,

Zahariel's terrorsight ability

would be an example of natural psychic ability, which he cannot really -not- do. There's a clear difference between an astropath having a natural ability to send/receive telepathic messages and a sorcerer performing a ritual to bind a familiar to himself...

 

Well, didn't the Librarians protest to the decree imposed by the Emperor during Magnus & Thousand Sons' trail? Yes, I recall Magnus' usage of the sorcery really screw things up badly out at the Emperor's Palace which ... pissed the living s--t out of him.

 

So, where does the psyker and sorcery fit in the decree imposed by the Big E ?

[Chengar Qordath]

Um, I always thought the issue was sorcery, not use of psychic abilities. Sorcery is used for pretty much anything/everything except natural psychic abilities. For example,

Zahariel's terrorsight ability

would be an example of natural psychic ability, which he cannot really -not- do. There's a clear difference between an astropath having a natural ability to send/receive telepathic messages and a sorcerer performing a ritual to bind a familiar to himself...

 

Well, didn't the Librarians protest to the decree imposed by the Emperor during Magnus & Thousand Sons' trail? Yes, I recall Magnus' usage of the sorcery really screw things up badly out at the Emperor's Palace which ... pissed the living s--t out of him.

 

So, where does the psyker and sorcery fit in the decree imposed by the Big E ?

Old fluff said that only sorcery was banned were psykers were fine. The newer fluff in the HH books states that all usage of psychic abilities and interaction with the Warp (except astropaths/navigators) was banned, with sorcery receiving no particular mention since at that time the Imperium did not acknowledge the difference.