Ok, so here is the situation...

The group I'm playing with consists of a Cleric (Redemptionist Firebrand background), a Scum, a Tech-priest, and myself an Arbitrator.

During the course of our investigation of some underground caves that may or may not have a mutant/daemon infestation we came upon a citizen who had squirreled himself away. After some initial questioning my Arbitrator feels he is hiding something but in the process of further questioning the citizen falls unconscious. The cleric says he is going to drag the citizen out of the room and light him up (he has already set a blaze one citizen who had seen too much and gone insane and threatened another 10 guardsman, recovering in an infirmary, with the same fate).

I intervene and say that I have further questions for the citizen, but the cleric now says that he is going to just poor the fuel on the citizen right here then. I tell him to stand down this citizen is hiding something and I want to know what it is and once I'm done then he can purge him. The cleric ignores me and opens his gas tank, I swing the butt of my gun at his chest (missing) and again tell him to stand down. The cleric then says that he is going to light me up and attempts to douse me in fuel but also misses. It's at this time the Scum in the group empties a 3 round burst into the citizen's face and says the point is moot let's move on trying to keep us from killing each other.

How would you deal with the murder a citizen who potentially held information pertaining to your investigation (the Scum), the intent to commit murder of the citizen (the Cleric), and the intent to commit murder of an Arbitrator (the Cleric)?

I held off from doing anything because we are trapped underground for at least two days with who knows what in front of us. The more living bodies around me, the more likely we are to make it out. But it's a little hard to overlook the attempt on my character's life.

You're an arbite. It's literally outside your jurisdiction unless it involves treason or heresy, and even then, your superiors will likely have a similar course of action in mind as the cleric and the scum, and ask you why you had objections to killing a heretic.

If the cleric wants to kill some random person who's worth less than a las gun, no one cares.

If you really want to do something about it, execute the scum on the spot. He has no real rights.

Or you could just waive it and put it in your report and proceed down other avenues, and leave the dressing down to someone with actual authority over the cleric, such as your inquisitor and watch the scum get promoted to interrogator because he had the clarity of mind to deal with the matter swiftly and proceed with the actual investigation.

If you wanted to get in an argument about the cleric with violence, it should have been when he threatened the guardsmen and, worse, an important medical facility which is vital to the imperial guard's morale, which is the jurisdiction of the commissariat and treading into it borders on treason. You -could- have actually executed the cleric for that.

It's a bit too late to bring that up, though, so put it in the report as well, or better yet, give them a ring and the cleric's address.

There was no evidence that the citizen was a heretic, that was what I wanted to find out with questioning him more. We knew that there was potentially innocent bystanders trapped down there.

Better to kill them and let the Emperor sort it out. Even the chance of heresy is enough for execution in most cases with the Ecclarisy.

Honestly, you're both in trouble. As an arbite, it is your duty to guard against treason and heresy. As a cleric, it is the redemptionists duty to convert the masses to his way of thinking. The cleric has failed in so far as he is burning people with zero evidence, and threatened a vital imperial guard institution (cleric or not THAT could get him shot,not some no-name civilian). He seems to be missing the point of why clerics burn people at the end of a witch hunt, and focuses entirely on the burnination as "the point". It isn't. He shouldn't be wearing that robe

Your arbite has failed in that he put the minor incident (the civilian; no one is going to care about him) higher in importance than a valuable medical facility, the guardsmen inside and the loyalty of their regiments. It is very likely the cleric thinks you are too soft, while you, rather correctly, have him pegged as a dangerous nutjob. Meddling with the ecclessiarchy isn't your job, though. It goes one step up in the command chain, unless there is due cause. IF, and only if, he acts against something vital to the imperial war machine or the tithe, such as a noble, a forge, starts torching fields or whatever, THEN you don't put him on trial. You don't even waste words with a warning.

You shoot him in the head. And put why in your report.

Innocense proves nothing .- Imperial proverb.

Honestly this sort of situation is supposed to be this way in universe. You both answer to different parts of the Imperium, you both see your authority as absolute, and you have overlapping situations where the jurisdiction is ambiguous and you have widely differing methods to deal with them. This type of stuff is supposed to happen, and you both would be in character to kill each other or let it slide. For meta game purposes you should let is slide like a buddy cop film to be honest.

Confessors are wandering maniacs who are often barely tied in to the local Ecclesiarchy. They go around whipping crowds into religious fervor, getting them to snitch on others, and killing ANYONE they think has crossed the line with the 40k version of pitchforks and torches. That can be a lowly mutant, a brutal narco ganger, or a planetary governor. Planetary rebellions have started over their actions, and while some people appreciate them, many don't. They often live short brutal lives, and are tolerated because those in power are worried about antagonizing them. Him being burn happy doesn't make him a particularly smart confessor, but it's totally within the idea to play it that way.

Arbiters are interested in rooting out treason, high crimes that local authorities will have trouble dealing with, and anything that slows down the Imperium. Basically if you are a rebel, if you are targeting the various adepts, if you are slowing down the war machine, or if you are a high level fugitive. Then they want your ass. If they think they have all the relevant info they will kill often execute you on the spot. Anyone who is a bit shot might get arrested so that he could have a ritualized execution. Again their anyone stretches from the underhive to the governor's spire, though they generally have more tact and aren't isolated murder hobos.

Your characters disagreeing about how to process a criminal makes total sense in universe. Your characters killing each other would also make sense in universe(I had to burn down the tithe truck, it was impure!). But I think the biggest question is, is this level of PVP suitable for your table? If it isn't come to some sort of meta game agreement that your characters will either lighten up on each other, or that your characters will just never come to blows.

Edit: I think the real hero here is the scum's player. Who while averting a disaster totally committed an offense he could be executed for were you so willing. Gotta love the Imperium.

Oh, yes, if your round isn't PvP, totally go with what n00b said. I sort of assumed it was...

...It's at this time the Scum in the group empties a 3 round burst into the citizen's face and says the point is moot let's move on trying to keep us from killing each other.

Heh. This guy would feel right at home in my party...

In the circumstances it might be appropriate to wait until you are out of the cave system. Then make a report to your Inquisitor so he knows the cleric is mentally unstable to the extent of jeopardising missions. Alternatively simply frag him during combat.

You're an arbite. It's literally outside your jurisdiction unless it involves treason or heresy, and even then, your superiors will likely have a similar course of action in mind as the cleric and the scum, and ask you why you had objections to killing a heretic.

If the cleric wants to kill some random person who's worth less than a las gun, no one cares.

If you really want to do something about it, execute the scum on the spot. He has no real rights.

Or you could just waive it and put it in your report and proceed down other avenues, and leave the dressing down to someone with actual authority over the cleric, such as your inquisitor and watch the scum get promoted to interrogator because he had the clarity of mind to deal with the matter swiftly and proceed with the actual investigation.

If you wanted to get in an argument about the cleric with violence, it should have been when he threatened the guardsmen and, worse, an important medical facility which is vital to the imperial guard's morale, which is the jurisdiction of the commissariat and treading into it borders on treason. You -could- have actually executed the cleric for that.

It's a bit too late to bring that up, though, so put it in the report as well, or better yet, give them a ring and the cleric's address.

The killing of a random citizen isn't an arbitrator's concern but the priest threatened an arbitrator's life which is definitely against imperial law and killing a witness before they can be questioned probably is too especially if the loss of information causes damage down the line.

Of course now that they are inquisition agents jurisdiction and imperial law doesn't mean much other than how the arbitrator might view situations.

It is perfectly within the Inquisition's power to purge guardsmen that they believe have seen too much. Whether that was the case in the med tent or if the cleric was just being crazy depends on the specific circumstances.

OP:

Why did he want to burn the guardsmen? I'd say the guardsmen situation is one that should have been brought up with the inquisitor or with the party's Inquisition handler even if it didn't come to blows. Some Inquisitors would have serious issue with that especially if the guardsmen hadn't been exposed to anything particularly bad. The situation in the cave I think the scum and cleric were probably more in the right although they could have been more diplomatic about it. It sounds like the civilian was a nobody. Even if he was a cultist or guilty of something it sounds like he probably wasn't a particularly high ranking one so probably wouldn't have known much of use. Of course if questioning him would have only cost a few minutes then the cleric was being a complete psycho and it might be worth mentioning to the inquisitor (unless the inquisitor is a crazy puritan like the cleric)

Unfortunately, the adeptus arbites only have jurisdiction over the ecclessiarchy in matters that pertain the lex imperialis, ergo, when the ecclessiarchy treads on the grounds of institutions under the direct jurisdiction of terra. Hence, his attack on the cleric to protect the citizen is heresy, which is not covered under the lex imperialis, but makes him, in the eyes of the ecclessiarchy, and his peers, a heretic if he pushes that issue. A cleric who is not committing treason is well within his rights to shoot an arbite in the face who decides to infringe in something completely (!) outside his jurisdiction, which both the adeptus ministorum and the adeptus mechanicus would be. In both cases, this makes him a heretic.

When, and only when, the cleric touches things actually under his jurisdiction, such as matters pertaining the imperial guard, then he may act. If his action is illegal and against a member of the ecclessiarchy, though, he has absolutely no grounds, nor will he be supported by his own judges. In fact, for attacking a redemptionist who had not been committing any current offense under the lex imperialis (killing a witness is not one, nor is it viewed as "hampering the investigation"; in 40k, you can extract knowledge from the brains of dead people, if you really want to. Dead or alive, they will answer) and failing to do so when the redemptionist actually did (burning down a valuable military hospital would be destruction of munitorum property, which is treason; the guardsman inside, dependant on rank and how the regiment is valued, as well) would have him under investigation by, and here comes the ironic bit, the Ordo Hereticus.

Good times.

Furthermore, they may be inquisitorial agents, but unless they are carrying a rosette, they do not have the authority to purge anything, beyond that awarded by the offices they hold in their respective institutions. That is something to keep in mind, and since an interrogator was not mentioned by OP, I doubt they have a rosette to back up their threats to a valuable medical installation (it'd be SO much less of an issue if they just dragged the guardsmen outside, to a place the fire won't spread, and burnt them there...).

Truthfully, though, I would personally use this situation as a plot hook to get players more familiar with the fine print of the Lex Imperialis and their respective duties. It is the perfect moment for their respective superiors to step in and tell them "This is our objective, this is our duty, and this is precisely how you messed up." You can always bring out the bolt pistol and the ordo hereticus interrogator the second time around. As hXc as I might come across, I don't actually execute my PCs on the first offense. I of course tell them that such is grounds for execution, preferably IC via an officer present or later in the debrief, but if I can find anything that lets them off the hook just this once I'm more than happy to use it. 'course, if there's no redeeming qualities about the team and their mission was a bust, well...actually, I'd probably do reassignment to a penal legion and toss my plot notes out the window for some Full Metal Jacket 40k.

My two shells:

Honestly this sort of situation is supposed to be this way in universe. You both answer to different parts of the Imperium, you both see your authority as absolute, and you have overlapping situations where the jurisdiction is ambiguous and you have widely differing methods to deal with them. This type of stuff is supposed to happen, and you both would be in character to kill each other or let it slide. For meta game purposes you should let is slide like a buddy cop film to be honest.

They both anser to the same part of the Imperium: The holy Inquisition. I'd be your Inquisitor, I would execute the cleric and chastise the Scum for executing someone who could have intel just to stop the real person he should have shot from making the party a battle field.

In my opinion, the cleric is two options:

1- A very bad player

2- His character is realy stupid, even in the standards of the extremists of the ecclesiarchy.

Purging by fire or not; he is sent in a mission for the Inquisition. They've got an investigation to do and the guy try to kill someone who may have informations, and then try to kill the one who is professional enough to act.

This was exactly my thoughts. I had even said to the Cleric that the civilian would be cleansed after I asked him some questions, I was in no way trying to save a life but trying to investigate the situation.

Yeah what Lynata and Alexei say are very good points. I was answering the question as a matter of legality divorced from the fact that they are all presumably acolytes of an Inquisitor. Cause ultimately when it comes down to it, you can either frag him, let it slide, or snitch to your Inquisitor. Even by the Imperium's own sorta fast and loose standards of law and jurisdiction, your team is extra super legal. You're not likely to file paperwork with the local branches of either groups, because you more than likely do not work directly for them anymore.

How the Inquisitor is likely to respond is a complete crap shoot really. Not just from the perspective of how the GM tries to wrangle you, but just in general Inqs can be a pretty varied lot. Some will be apathetic or annoyed, some will respond violently to one or all of you, some might think it's funny. Or anything else you can think of. If you're going to settle this IC, and everyone is cool with it(non consensual PVP often ends poorly) I'd either come up with an argument against the cleric possibly including a signed confession by the scum, and file the paperwork on the quiet tip hoping the Inq comes down in your favor. Or frag him and call it justice by the Lex Imperialis. You determine the guilt and their punishments, acolyte or no, and there's only one punishment for attempted murder of an arbiter.

I really can't stress enough that non consensual pvp is a bad idea that will likely poison the table. So just consider the meta implications of any of your actions.

While I agree with n00b about poisoning the table, I have to come down firmly on the side of the Arbiter. While attempting to kill a citizen is not your jurisdiction (Sorta. Misconduct of a member of one of the adeptas is!) Interfering with your investigation most certainly is! Also, any attempt to douse an arbiter in fuel should result in immediate hand cannon to the face! I also believe the player of the cleric needs to be reigned in a bit. If his actions are as described, he strikes me as the chaotic stupid player type from, d&d

Cleric: 'Look I just poored some gas on you, I wasn't gonna light it! I swear."

Arbites:" So what you're saying is, you just wanted to give me some fuel?"

Cleric: "Yes! Yes, thats exactly what i wanted to do."

Arbites: "In that case you are guilty of attempted bribery of an adeptus arbites with goods and or services!"

Cleric: "Wha?"

Arbites: *shoots Cleric* BANG!

My two cents - the Arbites is a member of the Adeptus Terra, and any harm or threats to harm towards him or her constitute an attack on their organization, which is within their jurisdiction. Any interfering with their function - such as in this case an investigation which falls within their jurisdiction - is also against the Lex Imperialis, as far as I see it. For that matter, the Arbites can certainly investigate a situation to determine if it does fall within their jurisdiction (and any interference with that is naturally also against the Lex Imperialis).

Arbites don´t concern themselves with local laws, but their hands aren´t all that well tied. The Lex Imperialis is a pretty extensive code, and I am sure that killing an Imperial Citizen could be interpreted as endangering Imperial resources somewhere... and really, are you going to argue with an Arbitrator about what is covered by Imperial Law and thus waste her time and through this, the resources of her esteemed Adeptus? _{Guess what, scum, that is against Imperial Law}

Sadly, as both characters are agents of the Inquisition, dealing with the perp in the typical fashion is to be avoided unless absolutely necessary. However, imo the Arbitrator definitly has the justification to act in such a case.

@ Lynata - I assume that Arbitrators have a sort of "hot pursuit" clause that would empower them to continue an investigation if it goes beyond the limits of their precinct, which could work quite well for those of them working for the Inquisition. At least, I have not heard of anything saying they are limited like that.

@ Lynata - I assume that Arbitrators have a sort of "hot pursuit" clause that would empower them to continue an investigation if it goes beyond the limits of their precinct, which could work quite well for those of them working for the Inquisition. At least, I have not heard of anything saying they are limited like that.

Possibly (although I wouldn't bet on it; this may well be a situation that is not supposed to occur*), yet I assume the "Arbites" wasn't there as an Arbites (was he in uniform? did he identify himself?) instead of "just" an Inquisitorial operative, exactly like the cleric.

Either way, Inquisitorial authority supersedes that of the Inquisition (or the Ecclesiarchy), so even if you'd play it that way, you'd effectively end up with an Arbites who shoots an Inquisitorial operative because his Inquisitorial investigation was interfering with an Arbites investigation.

*: In 40k, interstellar travel is both rare and complicated. The Arbites have their own starships, but I doubt a beat cop or even an investigator can just hitch a ride on a Punisher-class cruiser because they were pursuing someone, especially as it means they may not see the world they've been assigned to again for months or even years. I deem it far more likely that the Arbites would escalate the case and log a request for a more specialised unit with access to starships to haul in the fugitive for them.

This isn't Star Wars where people can just hop into a fighter and switch planets, so a "hot pursuit" may not even be possible, hence it could be that such cases are not covered by regulations -- or rather, that the regs say that an Arbites assigned to a specific planet is supposed to stay on it.

Matter of interpretation, though. As always, lack of canon means that both our perspectives are equally valid.

In fact, I suppose this goes even moreso as it is also a matter of interpretation of whether these characters could even be considered to still be called Arbites and Cleric, or rather Ex -Arbites and Ex -Cleric, as in referring to Inquisitorial operatives who merely benefit from the skillset they have acquired in the profession they used to work in before their recruitment. DH1 seems to assume they actually keep their old jobs, but a lot of groups treat it differently.

Hmm, Dark Heresy characters are get paid wages according to their class, so I imagine they are still part of their respective adeptus and on the books somewhere. Maybe the Inquisition has some sort of detached duty agreements with the Arbites or the Guardlike phony military units, arbites formations (i.e. sectorwide task force) or the like where the character is kept on the books. or they just smoothe things over with the previous detachment. A cleric is a cleric by calling first, imo, so it is pretty hard to be an ex-cleric as long as you preach the Emperor´s word.

Hmm, Dark Heresy characters are get paid wages according to their class, so I imagine they are still part of their respective adeptus and on the books somewhere.

Indeed, hence the addendum that DH1 seems to assume this by RAW.

Personally, I maintain that it really doesn't make any sense at all to have, say, an Imperial Guardsman in an on-off relationship with his or her regiment because, umm, it certainly won't raise any questions at all if Trooper Frenk somehow goes missing for a couple weeks every few months and mysteriously reappears right in the warzone, even if/once the regiment has changed planets. Not to mention possible side-effects of Inquisitorial deployments.

"Hey, is that a cybernetic leg? What happened to you, man?"

"I, uhh .. fell down the stairs."

Even maintaining fake military formations where people are just kept on the books don't really fit into my picture, for I can't see the purpose for this deception when the alternative - having the character disappear forever (declaring them dead or filing a transfer) - is so much easier and safer. The only possible advantage of keeping the characters in their original organisation would be their rank, but this can easily be forged as part of a cover identity using Inquisitorial resources, with the added bonus that it gets more difficult to track this individual since they won't be leaving a paper trail. Keeping the Acolytes within their original Adeptus does only one thing: increase the risk of discovery.

Perhaps this might make more sense in a setting where space travel would be a lot more reliable and speedy, where an interstellar banking system would allow instantaneous money transfers across the entire sector, where the bureaucracy would actually be capable of tracking someone's whereabouts, and where the secret police is a fully integrated organisation rather than a loose network of people with carte-blanche authority. But my understanding of 40k as a technologically regressive setting just doesn't have room for this.

Fortunately, DH2 seems to have done away with this, so this is one change where I have to applaud the people at FFG.

Of course it still remains a matter of interpretation that every group needs to resolve for itself.

A cleric is a cleric by calling first, imo, so it is pretty hard to be an ex-cleric as long as you preach the Emperor´s word.

Well, in this context, the cleric has been in the employ of the Adeptus Ministorum and actually received a wage from the temple. This makes it a job - different to the street preachers and cult priests who act as clerics as well, yet do not have an official affiliation with the state church.

The Ecclesiarchy is also split up into dioceses, so to keep receiving their money the character would have to file a lot of transfers as he or she moves from planet to planet, all the while having to integrate into local interpretations of the faith and preaching the local temple's dogma. Sure, I assume the Inquisitor could make the paper trail disappear, but such excessive interference itself will not go unnoticed for long, so again I am left to wonder why the cleric doesn't just get their money from the Inquisitor and made to permanently disappear into a safehouse between assignments.

tl;dr: in my opinion , the Inquisition isn't a part-time job. Either you're in it, and fully committed, or not.

Also, now that I think about it, this is a topic that might almost deserve its own thread.