Sister Cat said:

I've learned that the cure for full-tilt power gamers with a nose for lewtz, is through attrition. But not by starving them of loot and xp, but simply handing out way too much of it.

Want a lascannon? Go ahead, it's yours. Power Armour? Sure, take it. 5000 XP for just killing a mook? Fine.

Hand it all out in a "mock-campaign" and hand it out way too fast. Sooner or later, even the worst power gamer will come to realize that it isn't very fun to get the all powerful loot or character advancements as fast as possible. When they start to show disintrest, ask them: "Why did you get bored?"

Some of them will probably already know why, but som might not. Tell those that don't know that the reason the game quickly became boring is because of the players acting too greedy. They forgot about the enjoyment of the struggle and the interesting aspects of the drama that comes from roleplaying, and for what? Getting make-believe weapons and "fake experience" to write on their character sheets?

Being able to slaughter greater daemons and super heavy tanks without breaking a sweat might be fun for a few seconds. But when you do it all the time, and are expected to do it all the time, it will feel hollow. The victories, achievements and hoards of loot just won't be as satisfying anymore.

So a tip would be stageing a mock-campaign, where you are way too generous with xp and loot. There's a chance that the players will learn the error of their ways. The plasma gun is only an attractive piece of loot as long as you don't have it. Once you have ten or twenty plasma guns, they lose their sparkle in some way.

One thing I will say is NEVER allow a player to play a Redemptionist unless you want to limit the campaign to a severe degree. Any psyker in the party is a problem. Any mutation as well. Have a player who decides to use an alien weapon? Uh-oh. Is your Inquisitor anything but a Mono-dominant? Better not let the nutjob fascist know about it.

Honestly, just say no to Redemptionists. They're really only suitable for NPCs.

Atheosis said:

I disagree, I really like PC animosity and in-fightning. Few things are as entertaining as placing a Redemptionist in the same cell as a psyker. Or a psyker in the same cell with a cocky untouchable. And in both cases their Inquisitor have strict orders for his acolytes that they are to do their job without fail.

Also, the mood such dynamics evoke where the two polarized opposite characters are constantly on the lookout for when the other decides to stab them in the back is perfect for Dark Heresy. If you can achieve paranoia between PC's by just placing mismatched character types in the same group, it should be done.

When you're in the Inquisition, it's not you and your buddies against the world. It's every man and woman for himself/herself but with a shaky truce with his or her cell partners. Just like in all those spy thrillers that we all love (... well I know I do)

Half the fun of Dark Heresy is actually the dynamic between the acolytes, and also the acolytes and their Inquisitor. The reasons why an Inquisitor puts two mismatched acolytes in the same cell can be the basis for an ongoiung subplot. For that matter why do the acolytes get sent on missions where storm troopers or other agents might be more appropriate? And why does their Inquisitor seem to want their enemies captured rather than executed?

After a while the best campaigns are ones wher the kill the heretic parts are sub plots to the infighting between various acolytes or rival acolyte cells of the same Inquisitor.

Varnias Tybalt said:

There's a fine line, though, between enjoyable, characterful animosity... and game-derailing internecine warfare.

The devout Redemptionist/Sanctioned Psyker struggle is a tricky one to balance, moreso even than the inclusion of an Adepta Sororitas character in a group (both seek to immolate sinners... the difference is that devout Redemptionists often consider all non-Redemptionists to be sinners). Having the group explode because of mishandled character animosity is rarely fun.

Varnias Tybalt said:

No properly played Redemptionist is going to lead to anything but outright player-kill. I get what you're saying to a degree, but I feel you shouldn't be suggesting such things to the general DH player-base. You evidently have a group that can handle such infighting. Many groups do not.

Personally, I would never run an Inquisitor who would tolerate such things, and I would be very upfront about it. Any open conflict between Acolytes would be dealt with very harshly, and one acolyte killing another would likely result in a new existence as a servitor.

Visitor Q said:

Scum vs Arbites is what we call in-fighting. Psyker vs Redemptionist is what we call in-killing.

I really don't think you guys get what a Redemptionist is. He isn't going to grudgingly work with anyone he considers the enemy, and he considers nearly everyone the enemy. He is going to try to kill them, and no amount of duress from his Inquisitor is going to disuade him. In fact the vast majority of Inquisitors, Puritan and Radical alike, would be seen as the enemy as well. Really only hardcore mono-dominants could ever hope to meet a Redemtionist's standards, and even most of them have more sense than to employ such nutjobs as acolytes.

Atheosis said:

"Outright" is a strong term here. A redemptionist might hate another player character enough to want to kill him or her, but the thing is that the more fanatical about the Imperial Creed you get, the more your Inquisitior should be considered a "holy representative of the Imperium second only to the God-Emperor himself", and if the Inquisitor says that you have to put your personal feelings aside you are, according to your beliefs, pretty much forced to try your very best, despite how many sinners you're forced to work with. It doesn't mean that the redemptionist will have to like it, and a stupid redemptionist will probably die pretty fast if he or she tries to kill off "the unwanted" as fast and as direct as possible.

Atheosis said:

Why should that keep me from coming up with suggestions?

It's not my problem if any given group have a hard time handling it. It's the GM's call in the end, and if the GM doesn't like the idea that the player characters might suddenly feel the urge to kill eachother or plot against eachother or their Inquisitor then then simply refuse to let the players do those kind of characters. However if the GM is more interested in making his or her game about the players, rather than railroading their characters through intricate scenarios that will crash and burn depending on how well the characters work together, then my suggestion will certainly lead to a good time.

Atheosis said:

Well that's the trick isn't it? You have to try and kill or trip the other player character when your Inquisitor isn't watching. And your Inquisitor might well have hired one of the other acolytes to monitor your own PC's actions (one can never know). Paranoia is the goal here.

Personally in DH the obvious solution is to let the players start fighting with each then have their boss debrief them and know exactly what they were doing. Then make it clear he expects the PCs to work together. Then space the worst offender. Let the PC in question suffer the full effects of being spaced. If the rest of his group acts quickly he might get back in fast enough. If not it's burn a fate point and look up the rules on cybernetic resurrection in the IH.

Varnias Tybalt said:

Trying to hide the truth from an Inquisitor is rarely ever a good idea.

Varnias Tybalt said:

"If, for example, another player is a psyker or a mutant of any kind, you view them as a heretic and think there is only one correct response--burn them."

That's a direct quote from the IH. It goes on to say that the advance really shouldn't be taken unless the game's Inquisitor is a Puritan, and preferably Monodominant.

I really don't think you get that a Redemptionist, smart or stupid, is first and foremost an utterly hate-filled individual that would die before working alongside those they hate.

Read the True Believer trait on the same page if you don't believe me. It couldn't be much more clear.

By the way, Redemptionists don't exactly follow the Imperial Creed as laid down by the Ecclesiarchy. In fact, some within both the Ecclesiarchy and Inquisition see them as heretics. They've infiltrated too much of the Imperium's power structure however to ever be declared as such.

Atheosis said:

It doesn't really matter, since the red redemption aren't alone in having extreme views. Most acolytes will find themselves having to put aside some of their views simply because their Inquisitor demands it. Or at the very least, act upon them later rather than sooner. Also a smart redemptionist will realize that if he or she doesn't kill the psyker acolyte just yet, they will have the opportunity to burn a lot more heretics in the Emperors name due to the fact that their Inquisitor is constantly sending them out to find and kill a lot of heretics. If the redemptionist opts to outright kill someone the Inquisitor have specifically ordered to leave alone, then that opportunity will be swiftly taken away.

Also, the more fanatical a person is, the more they tend to realize the importance of "means to an end". In fact so much that they go against their own religion. It happens even in the real world actually. I can assure you that a "good muslim" does not engage in acts of terrorism, it goes against so many of islams laws according to the qur'an. And the people calling themselves muslims who engage in terrorism have perverted their faith and thereby their religion beyond recognition, mainly because of their fanatical devotion. I can certainly see the same thing happening to a redemptionist, especially because of their fanatical ways.

The testing of a player character's faith is a very interesting aspect in an RPG.

Atheosis said:

It doesn't matter. Acolytes are among the few people who will actually be presented with the opportunity to hide things from an Inquisitor several times during their career. And if the GM isn't being a fudge nazi, they would realistically "get away with murder" under their Inquisitors radar if they tried it. It would demand extreme sneakyness and smarts of course, but it is possible.

Varnias Tybalt said:

Did you actually read the section I referenced? The game designers make it very clear that a Redemptionist is not a good choice for most games. They even wrote up a rule to make them miserable if they aren't working for a like-minded looney.

Look it's really simple. Redemptionists burn mutants, psykers, and heretics. Their entire belief system is centered on it. That is a fact. The fluff is very clear. Being employed by an Inquisitor won't change that, and the moment that he orders the Redemptionist to go against his fanatical beliefs he'll simply become one more heretic to be burned.

By the way, I'm not touching the Muslim comment.

Varnias Tybalt said:

Except that we're talking about a setting in which mind-reading is common (at least for the Inquisition). Sorry, no Inquisitor worth his salt will fail to know what his acolytes are up to, especially if they draw his attention with the suspicious deaths of their comrades.

Atheosis said:

I can't say I've read any real game mechanic or rule that forces someone buying the Red Redemption elite package to always burn ALL mutants, psykers an heretics as soon as the chance presents itself.

I've read some fluff about it (in the same book you have), and said fluff is open to a fair degree of interpretation.

Also you seem to underestimate the human survival instinct that OFTEN takes presedence over any religious beliefs. Sure a redemptionist might be a cocky bastard when he's got his red robes and mask on and when he's in company of a mob of like minded zealots. But plucked up by the Inquisition and being alone with total strangers (his or her boss the Inquisitor and several acolytes), and the Inquisitor saying: "If I find out you've harmed my psyker, im gonna have you tortured and killed and I'll also plant evidence with your former congregation of Red Redemptionists that you were executed for acts of heresy."

The redemptionist character will pretty much have to commit suicide, or wise up and focus on his or her survival instinct. And since it is the player's choice what aspect of the personality that his or her character will focus on... Well you understand what I mean.

Atheosis said:

No need to. I've read my fair share of the Qur'an, and spoken to quite a few muslim scholars about it so I know what im talking about. If you don't feel confident in your knowledge about the subject then there's really not much else to say about the subject. Besides it was just an example proving a point.

Atheosis said:

First of all, mind-scanning is not an exact science, and if you're familiar with the rules you'll know there are a **** load of talents and implants that will make mind-scanning autmatically harder for any psyker.

Second, there is NO STANDARD PRACTICE amongst Inquisitors in the 41st millenium. Sure you might think that an Inquisitor "worth his salt" subjects all his acolytes to frequent mind-scans every now and then, and the Inquisitor characters you create might certainly do so. But if you read some of the different sources about Inquisitors (Black Library as well as GW publications) you'll see that far from all Inquisitors do this, and even Inquisitors who could do it on their own (psyker Inquisitors) try to avoid invading their acolytes' private thoughts.

Gideon Ravenor often prefered not to mind probe his acolytes mainly because he actually cared for them and respected their privacy, and he was considered to be a "genious Inquisitor" by his peers until he went rogue that is. So you're certainly welcome to your opinion, but I wouldn't call it "standard" to say that a genious Inquisitor isn't "worth his salt" because he doesn't scan the minds of his underlings often enough.

As for the suspicious nature of an acolyte's death: the point of getting rid of someone discreetly is making sure that the death ISN'T suspicious, but rather something standard and plausible. For instance: how often do acolytes of the Inquisition tend to get involved in serious firefights with all kinds of heretics, aliens and mutants?

Personally my =][= doses the PCs with a drug that blocks the formation of long term memories. Then has them mind probed. While they were having tea waiting for their interview. Of course their master really didn't care about any thing that didn't effect the mission or wasn't worse than minor heresy.

Varnias Tybalt said:

No need to continue this discussion then, seeing as you aren't even reading the source material.

Atheosis said:

Okay, since you don't believe im reading the source material I'll quote the entire section:

Taking the Red Redemptionist Elite Advance

In taking this Advance, you aren't simply entering a cult but are subscribing to a fixed and narrow view of everything in the Imperium. If, for example, another player is a psyker or a mutant of any kind, you view them as a heretic and think there is only one correct response - burn them. This Career Path is best taken by Acolytes of an Inquisitor of Puritan view and preferably by Acolytes opf a Monodominant or similar firebrand hardliner.

Can't say that I see ANY in-game mechanic saying that a redemptionist has to (as according to a near Mind control like psychic power) burn and kill any mutant or heretic they see. It says that they have a very narrow view and that there is only one correct response to such individuals, and a redemptionist is very likely to dislike an Inquisitor telling him or her to leave specific psykers or mutants alone, but once you're in the Inquisition it isn't officially your call in what to do with specific people. You know how the master/servant dynamic works right? A servant is only to do what it's master tells it to do, and it doesn't matter if you're a member of the Red Redemption, because they will certainly know how a master/servant dynamic works (because it is ingrained in the very fabric of the Imperium).

So while they might put it on their "to do-list" to kill that psyker or mutant that they weren't allowed to touch at that moment, and possibly the "radical" Inquisitor that told the redemptionist to leave said psyker/mutant alone as well, there's no game mechanic forcing a redemptionist to do it outright and as soon as possible.

Then we come to the next section about them:

True Believer (Trait)

As a true believer, you must cleave to the Ludmillan Dictates (see sidebar). Violating these dictates or acting against their teachings (even if under direct order or pain of death) causes you profound discomfort and mental stress. In such instances, you must succeed on a Willpower Test. If you fail, roll on the Shock Table in Dark Heresy (see page 233). The GM sets the Difficulty based on he severity of the breach of faith.

Now we're talking: an actual game mechanic that influence roleplaying, which you failed to mention, but just to prove my point and prove the fact that I am indeed reading the same source material you do, I graciously went ahead and quoted that as well.

While it does say that violating the Ludmillan Dictates will cause prfound discomfort and mental stress, it doesn't say that you have to act upon them at all. Just that you will suffer from shock if you fail the inevitable willpower rolls you have to take. Proving that a redemptionist could very well work in the same cell as a psyker without having to burn the psyker every time he or she sees it, the kicker is that the redemptionist will probably be in pretty poor mental state unless he or she has extreme Willpower.

This is, in game-mechanic terms called a "PENALTY". It doesn't force the choices of the player character at all, it just penalizes some choices more than others.

So, indeed there is no further point debating this, because I am right and you are wrong...

Varnias Tybalt said:

Sure buddy, whatever you say...

I don't have my IH with me, but I'm pretty sure there is a sidebarred rule that Red Redemptionist characters do, actually, have to follow the dictates of their creed (which are listed) unless they pass a WP test.

bogi_khaosa said:

Nope. The only rules about it is covered in the "True Believer" trait which I quoted. Meaning that they aren't forced to follow the dictates, it's just that the redemptionist will most likely suffer some serious mental stress if he or she doesn't.

But that's what makes it funny. If the GM wants to let a player play a redemptionist in a group where there's also a psyker or mutant, then obviously the GM wants to incorporate the elements of intra-group animosity, and it would be best to let the redemptionist player know that his or her character will have a really hard time because of their religious beliefs and having to ignore them from time to time or most likely be executed.