All this shirt earlier about a Commissar scarring one of a pair of twins so he could tell them apart - sounds kinda like he'd just be shot by the senior commissar, to be honest.
Damn, one pain in the **** commissar.
I felt I'd post this here, even if the thread's a few weeks old.
I have a problem. It's not as much of a problem with the OW characters (played by the same people), but for the DH adventure I GM...
Long story short, we have a Sister of Battle and an Assassin in the party. The Sister's very fanatical (as befits a Sororitas, though she's also unusually tolerant), and she nearly had a stroke when the Assassin declared that he was all but a heretic (I believe he even said IC something to the effect of "You pray to a rotten corpse on a fancy seat, you crazy *****"), and while there's no disagreements or such OOC, the Assassin player has basically knowingly been toeing the line on getting his character summarily executed for heresy/having the Sister go ballistic when he crosses the line one time too many.
And it's been pretty hard to reign in, because his IC actions and behavior has several times nearly gotten them all executed because they pissed off someone important. While it's been fairly interesting character interaction between the party members (and particularly his clashes with the Sororitas), it's very derailing in regards to the story. I'm not sure whether I should kill him by GM fiat somehow or let him go on as he has.
Last night, the PC Lieutenant and Commissar in the game I was running spoke with a Confessor to gain leads on the whereabouts of the treacherous planetary governor. During this discussion, the Lieutenant heavily implied that the situation had arisen due to the Confessor's negligence, and near enough accused him of Heresy.
The Commissar promptly had the Command Squad accost the Lieutenant in order to carry out a summary execution.
Sometimes players make mistakes and the roles demand action be taken. Our guys were alright with how things went down. Hopefully yours can come to an agreement off-table as to how to proceed.
I dunno Exo. Do your players enjoy the dynamic, do you enjoy having so many scenes have to come back to that story beat? Personally I'd try come up with something I'd prefer more, that maybe everyone else at the table prefers as well. Maybe he pulls it in a bit, he still needles people when he can. Makes a smart comment that sounds pious enough at face value("The Emperor's Mercy is without limits." as sobbing psykers are loaded onto a Black Ship stuff like that). Something that would antagonize the other PCs without getting him boltered by an outsider instantly.
There are subgroups who are not proper pious in the Imperium(many Ad Mechs, some Space Marines), and get away with it as long as they are not too provocative. Maybe as a measure of metagaming, most NPCs put up with it for the same reasons that the PCs do. You just sorta have NPCs give him a dirty look, or make a symbol of warding against his heresy. Or maybe his player can either play him slightly differently. He's grown tired of the Emperor-botherers and keeps it to himself, or has a religious revelation.
If you guys are really having fun you don't have to change anything at all. But if nothing else your concerns are real. So think about how much of it you're really okay with, alternatives you might want to pursue, and talk about it with the player. I wouldn't kill him by GM fiat without talking to him first, because while that may indeed be what the player wants for the character. Maybe he'd be happy with a slight change, or even sorta planning out his death scene with you. Some dramatic or humorous memorable moment, that he had a lot of say in and totally enjoyed.
It all comes down to taste, and talking is easier than reading their minds(it better be, or you're in trouble sorcerer).
In my games, I straight up don't allow players to be Commissars, Tech Priests, Confessors, or Storm Troopers. Not only do they not fit in with the theme of "grunts in the Imperial Guard" they really upset the power dynamic between players, and are hard to justify being in one squad all the time.
Players getting executed by the GM is one thing, but when it comes to another player doing it, that can get hairy.
I'm not sure whether I should kill him by GM fiat somehow or let him go on as he has.
A problem with such characters is that they rarely make sense within the context of the setting (let him explain in detail why he's not religious, given his upbringing and training), and that their provocations tend to be fun only for themselves, but annoying and possibly disruptive to everyone else, depending on which side of the comedy/serious border your table is located.
If it were up to me, I'd have the Sororitas punch him in the face with a power-armoured fist next time he utters something "funny", and after that schedule a stern talk with the Inquisitor. Technically, the Sister should feel a need to just burn the assassin on a pyre for the heretic he is, but orders are orders and as long as the Inquisitor doesn't just brush her concerns off, she'd let them handle things for the sake of the greater good and the accomplishment of the mission in service to the God-Emperor.
If
the Inquisitor brushes her off ... well, accidents can happen.
As for the Inquisitor, it really depends on what sort of character you've chosen here. Many of them are devout, but to different degrees, and some may even harbour similarly heretical thoughts and are just (a lot) clever than the assassin by not openly advertising them. Thusly, the consequences could range from actual punishment (a couple days of torture with temporary characteristics damage) as a lesson, to an attempt to simply reason with the character and making them understand that they either play ball or they are out, coupled with a not-so-subtle hint that there is only one way to "retire" from the Inquisition. If the Inquisitor is an atheist as well, they could try to convey the idea that the assassin may well hold on to his opinion, but just stop shoving it into everyone's face.
Another radical solution that would fit to the setting ... mandatory mind-wipe. There is a background package for this, too, and it might make for an interesting character. Perhaps a good compromise in that it would function almost like a "reset" for the character's personality, coupled with newfound acceptance from the other cell members, without actually having to sacrifice the character's looks and gear.
Either way, ideally talk it through with the players first.
Edited
by Lynata
Mm. A scheduled talk with the Inquisitor may be in order, particularly since the party's currently on down-time after a particularly harrowing adventure (and the convalescence of one badly injured teammate).
I'll probably do that. Thanks.
Hell, his Master (the Inquisitor) may be heretically unpious, but like that Inquisitor, it might do to hide it some. If a "corrupt Inquisitor had anything to do with his training/upbringing/current sentiments, it might even be justified, but that won't protect him from all consequences. You can rail against the system, even come up with a believable reason your character does (important, in my games, where your character isn't really just you), but don't be too surprised when the system does something about it. You don't like the Emperor? Fine. You SAY you don't like the Emperor? We kill CSMs a hell of a lot stronger, tougher, and more numerous than you for that very same reason.
At the least, make sure the player is aware of his thin ice. Some folks who play these games really don't know as much about the setting as they maybe ought, if you, as a GM plan to hold them to it. If they are well aware, and still act as prior...[waving good-bye to the Assassin, as we learn one of the other players was actually a GM-controlled Callidus, and he just got overkilled; overkill much? Of course, that's the best kind of kill.]
In my experience, such characters tend to be two things:
1) Player doesn't know the setting
2) Player wants to see how far he can go.
My advice would be to check if 1) is valid. If it is, be nice. If he knows the setting, though? Take the gloves off and make him burn a fate point for "misplaced inquistorial mercy" before he talks with his inquisitor. 'cause if he has said what he's said he has, in front of a sororitas no less, the likely result is a summary execution, and the most plausible way out is the inquisitor not ordering one in the first place. So, ask him if he'd like to burn fate early, because the moment he steps through that door, it goes one of two ways: Last chance or witch burning.
Edited by DeathByGrotzJust have him appointed as a commandant commisar(i.e. he is tagging along with a more senior comissar). Have the senior commisar threaten to bolt him if he keeps acting up for he is disrupting the moral of the troops and he has insulted a superior officer which according to the uplifting primar is treated with the death penalty, yet since he is new to the post he will be given some leniency.
There is a fairly easy solution actually since you said they are Cadians.
Each time the Commissar tries to abuse his power ask for a Willpower test as per the rules for Bred for War which the whole squad has and do the same for those asked to (and attempting to) follow orders that go against the rules and regulations of the Imperial Guard. If he ******* to higher ups about it they will look surprised at his claims of Cadians not following the rules of the Imperial Guard and question his competence.
If you look just at Ciaphas himsef it's not very obvious, but once you add in Jurgen (AKA Pariah Baldrick) it gets very obvious.
I also wonder if Jurgen actually smells bad, or if thats just the paraiah effect messing with Cain's perception of Jurgen.
A closer fit for Cain and Jurgen is the works of George MacDonald Fraser, specifically the Flashman series about a Victorian military hero whose self-deprecating memoirs about his actual cowardice are "edited" by Fraser; and the McAuslan series of semifictional stories about Fraser's service in the Gordon Highlanders shortly after WWII -- McAuslan is one of the privates under his command, the dirtiest soldier in the history of the British Army. Both series are hilarious, occasionally moving, historically accurate depictions. Granted, McAuslan is an idiot and Jurgen reasonably competent, but the gruesomeness is a giveaway especially when you recognize Flashman in Cain. I'm sure there's still some Blackadder series 4 in there, but it came well after Fraser's writings and may even be influenced by them. Even Dark Eldar reivers are mentioned, an obsolete term used by Fraser in his history of the Border Reivers and which I've never seen in any other context.
I think I'm with the majority in that a Commissar that leads by force of personality is one that will get the best results. After all, reading the Primer should be enough to actively scare you before even meeting a Commissar.
Seriously, the rules in section 2 of chapter 1 are mind boggling. Emperor help you if you're charged with self-harm.
Really, Commissars are there for the same reason Ministronum Priests are there: for the morale. They kinda act like standard bearers of a troop, and while the priest is meant to whip everyone up into a frenzy, the Commissar is there to keep everyone focussed and on point.
As others have said, dealing with the guy can be done in many ways, either officially by the Commissariat, or unofficially by the players while way out into enemy territory. You could have reasonable grounds to perform the former, as allowing the latter might damage the perception that Commissars have generated. You won't follow a Commissar as easily, should you become acutely aware that they are just as human as you. Really, if the CO has had a run in with said Commissar before then you just need to assess exactly what kind of person the CO is, perhaps he just gets tired of him and takes him out.