Should there be a Revulsion check in DH when dealing with mutants and such?

In my campaign this week the some of the players had to deal with mutants, and they treated them nicely and with respect. I pointed this out and was shown in none of the players back stories was there any anti mutant feelings. I know that a horrible mutant can inspire a fear check, but that feels a bit extreme when dealing with a pack of mutant children in a market place or dealing with a merchants caravan with mutants in it.

Fear checks can be (and often are in my campaign) very debilitating (although having a hardened Acolyte drop in gibbering fear in front of a mutant six year old with a teddy bear would bring a smile to my face). A revulsion check seems a bit more plausible, the inability to keeps ones disgust, hatred, or panic off their face or actions when dealing with the unknown or mutant, or church expunged.

I am assuming a check based on willpower with penalties if they have hatred. Any thoughts, Ideas, charts on this? I am thinking a negative ten for every level of failure in all social interactions. To harsh? Maybe allow a deceive roll to mitigate this?

Is this already in the game and I missed it? Would Jaded negate the need or give a bonus on the roll?

Well, said hardened acolytes should have more than 20 insanity points and be immune to Fear 1, which is the fear that normal mutants should have.

And seeing a bunch of malformed, inhuman children should be even creepier, in my opinion, than seeing a big mutant beasty that will be to them just another cr*p this galaxy sent for them to kill.

I'd say revulsion to mutants is a rather important aspect of the setting, especially given the degree of religious indoctrination the average Imperial citizen goes through and how the Church pushes the idea of mutation being a sign of an unclean soul.

A simple Willpower test should do the trick, failure to which would provide a negative Fellowship modifier to any sort of interaction with a mutant. The Jaded talent might apply here as well, representing the Acolyte to have become accustomed to dealing with these poor sods to such a degree that the player may choose the outcome of this test without rolling dice. Needless to say, proper roleplaying of certain archetypes might still warrant a negative reaction, simply because the player character may not want to hide their revulsion.

While I get that this sort of ingrained prejudice against mutants and xenos is a significant part of the setting, I have always been a very strong opponent of GM's telling players how their characters should feel or how they should react to something (barring some kind of actual mental control going on).

How familiar were your players with the setting before this campaign began? Are they even aware that this rampant prejudice is supposed to exist? Some players just don't enjoy playing prejudiced jerkweeds.

The characters in question had legitimate reasons to be polite, one was faced with seven heavy stubbers on an underhive merchants caravan and the other was at -2 wandering around an underhive market with no weapons or armor. So I can see why they would try to be polite and did not fault them for it. However just being polite when they want seems very un DH.

While I get that this sort of ingrained prejudice against mutants and xenos is a significant part of the setting, I have always been a very strong opponent of GM's telling players how their characters should feel or how they should react to something (barring some kind of actual mental control going on).

Well, if as a GM, I master wh40k, I well intend for my players to act like people in 40k. I make clear my expectations, and if they still decides to act unlike a people of such a society, there will come a day, and fast, that their unimperial ways will get in they way.

. However just being polite when they want seems very un DH.

If this happen in a situation where they should act like people from the 40k universe against a wretch from the underworld, and they are polite, you are right. But if they acted like this because of said heavy stubbers in their face, it's not when they want, it's when they can.

Yeah, of course it also comes down to one's idea of 40k -- headcanon, interpretation and all. But "being too friendly" can easily turn the setting into Brighthammer, and whilst that can be fun to some people, I'm not sure you wouldn't do the players a disservice by effectively empowering a behaviour that is bound to result in needless drama later on if they engage with more conservative players.

There's also the question of why play 40k at all: xenophobia and such are so integral to the setting, that if you'd remove them, it would have far-reaching consequences to other parts of the background (like a card house), and if the players dislike playing "morally questionable" characters, there may be other games more suitable to such a mindset.

This being said, it also always depends on the individual character. There may be worlds in the Imperium that are just somewhat more laid-back when it comes to mutants, or the character is a borderline radical who actually harbors compassion for the mutants and rejects the Ecclesiarchy's teachings about their condition. The important thing to keep in mind is just that such a mindset has to have a sensible source, and that it is bound to result in trouble with the wider, more conservative Imperium somewhere down the road. If played right, said trouble can well add to the experience rather than ruining it. As such, it really depends on the group -- just make sure the players are aware that they are "swimming against the current" and that their behaviour will have themselves get painted as abnormal.

This is why I thought revulsion roll. Imperial creed/dogma up against survival instincts. See any game show where you have to eat bugs or lay down in a coffin with snakes. Knowing that the snakes can't hurt you and getting a million dollars vs. your primal fears and training.

See any game show where you have to eat bugs or lay down in a coffin with snakes. Knowing that the snakes can't hurt you and getting a million dollars vs. your primal fears and training.

Ahh yes, good old Japanese TV .

I understand the reason, but I think that at this moment, a fear (1) check should be enough.

They fear the mutant principally because the ecclesiarchy told them they are soulless monsters.

But a jaded acolyte shoud be immune to this, since he've seen his lot of mutants and beast and his soul wasn't eaten (at least, he thinks).

And a highly religious character at insanity 80 will anyway purge them, because it's a question of roleplay, so no need of tests there either.

I think a lvl 1 fear check would be appropriate. Bear in mind that the situation you're talking about would be a non-combat situation so there would be no "shock" roll. I don't think a basic -10 to the character's social checks is misplaced. It represents the character's struggling with their inherent revulsion and fear while trying to conduct negotiations! Kinda hard to go all "Rico Suave" when the creature in front of you looks like something out of a horror vid and your Preacher condemns it's existence every Sunday!

Tying it to existing mechanics as closely as possible sounds like an elegant solution, if the effects are suitable. As long as these Inquisitorial warriors aren't running away screaming just because they meet a harmless, malnourished mutant baby with two heads.

OK, I see what you mean by no shock roll. Not really far off from what I originally proposed though (strangely no one in the party has resist fear). Plus calling for a fear check will freak the players out. Last time when faced with a zombie hoard on Gantry, one went catatonic, one ran, and one was backing away.