What is the difference between Radical Inquisitions and Puritan Inquisitions? Are they opposing forces? What I really want to know is if the Radicals are like deamon worshiping hereatics and hate the puritans and all there missions are to kill all good and any one who worships the emporer.

A simple answer to your question is to read the section in the rule book for DH, page 275, which has sections on puritan and radical factions with in the inquisition.

And I think that even simplier, more comfortable and original is this www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1320029_Inq_Rulebook_part_1.pdf

Radical's Handbook has even more detail. I'm just barely into the sections on the nature of the two major divisions, and in the section on campaigning, they list Puritans as the chief enemies of Radicals.

Outright war seems to be occuring between the two divisions in DH ...

RoBro said:

The Radicals do what they do to preserve the Imperium. Believe it or not, they are loyalists.

A ranting radical could describe the difference like this:

The Puritans thinks that following certain rules are more important than saving the Imperium. For example, if you need to kill every citicen on a planet because there are a lot of chaos cults there, the puritans think you should do it by using Imperium approved viral bombs or nuclear bombardment rather than using infiltration and subterfuge to start a war between the different cults. A puritan wouldn't even hire or trick a dangerous xenos fleet to do the job (and kill two flies with that single stone), even if the imperial fleet with the viral missiles takes much longer time and a lot more resources to get.

Puritans are set in their narrow ways of thinking that a tool has a moral value in itself. For example: a plasma gun crafted by the adeptus mechanicus is a "good" tool, while a plasma gun crafted by the Tau empire is a "bad" tool, no matter that the last one is a lot safer, more energy effective and has better range. Exactly how this value is decided upon is very arbitrary, but here is a hint: If something takes longer time and more resources to do, it is probably a "more puritan" way to do it. And once again, using a "good" tool is more important than saving the imperium.

Many puritans claim to hate us and want to hurt us, both as individuals and as an organisation. I think that deep down they are afraid to be left without a job if someone started comparing how effective we are. Usually they claim that they oppose us because our way of doing things are "wrong" or dangerous. Well of course it is dangerous to bind daemons to your service, use badly understood xenos artefacts and orchestrate wars between corrupt merchant houses. Just like it's dangerous to use with nuclear warheads, combatdrugged servitors and genetically targeted virals.

We are Inquisitors, it is our holy duty to put ourselves in danger to save the imperium. But the Puritans don't seem to understand that. They are so afraid to endanger themselves to body and soul that they would rather do a bad job than use a method that could blow up in their face or offend the Emperor (eternally blessing is his light).

Us radicals, we are ready to step up and fully take the responsibility that comes with this Inquisitorial seal. I am prepared to risk my life, my sanity and above all my eternal soul. I am prepared to make ugly deals with unpredictable xenos. I am prepared to risk tricking milennia old daemons, putting my own soul out as bait if needed. I have no trouble giving my official support to a corrupt planetary governor if she is the lesser evil and it means I might be able to stop a war without involving the entire Calixis fleet. I put me and my acolytes danger, to keep uncountable amounts of the Imperiums resources out of harms way.

Us radicals, we do the horrible, dangerous and self sacrificing things that needs to be done. It is not beacuse it is fun or a power trip, it is because someone has to do the sh*tty bits to keep the Imperium running.

Plus don´t forget that not all Radicals regulary use daemonweapons, daemonhosts, xeno-tech and so on. I recomend reading Recongregator and Istvaanist fan-made sourcebooks for Inquisitor: Battle for the Emperor´s Soul www.darkmagenta.co.uk/magazine.html

Mellon said:

Radicals deceive themselves. The moment an Inquisitor accepts the lies of the Warp, his judgement becomes unsound and all his works corrupt.

-Inquisitor Vownus Kaede, Ordo Hereticus

I have taken up the weapons of the daemon and enacted the foul rituals of the sorcerer. For this, they tried to burn me at the stake, these same men and women who are only alive today because of the sacrifices that cost me so much of my soul.

-Inquisitor Felroth Gelt, Ordo Malleus

What profit should we save a world, but lose our souls in the process? Better that it should all end in flames and sanctified, then to survive anointed by the warp.

-Inquisitor Beltain, Ordo Xenos

Faugh! Puritans are deluded. Anyone who sees what an Inquisitor sees ends up a radical in the end. If they really wanted to rid the galaxy of radicals they’d have to burn every single Inquisitor, starting with themselves.

-Inquisitor Ahmazzi, Ordo Malleus

Watch The Siege (1998 Film) and think the main characters work in Inquisition (FBI, CIA and Army in the film) hunting Heretics (terrorists in the film). Then it goes like this:

Denzel Washington starts as a Puritan but drifts a bit into Radical side towards the end.

Annette Benning is a Radical.

Bruce Willis is Radical who has gone all the way, to the bitter end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_siege

When viewed this way the scene where Puritan throws Radical into jail for her unorthodox methods and allies with Corrupted Radical is just so juicy I'd want to play out that in campaign

Or, in short:

Puritan plays by the book. Radical thinks the end justifies the means. Both can go bad.

Mellon said:

But at the same time, an Inquisitor might be considered a Radical if that Inquisitors orders the virus bombing of an entire world as well, depending on exactly how much evidence that Inquisitor has of cult activity.

For instance, the cult activity might be so small as to be easily snuffed out by a surgical strike with a proper taskforce, but if the over zealous Inquisitor just think: "You can never be sure enough" and go ahead and order an exterminatus on that world, he or she might be considered a radical as well. Especially if the world in question is a holy shrine world and the Inquisitor belongs to the Ordo Hereticus.

So the willingness to condemn a world to exterminatus isn't always a good way of measuring an individual Inquisitor's radical or puritan inclination.

Polaria said:

... But even puritan Inquisitors have often used the quote "The end ALWAYS justifies the means".

I'd say that the difference between a puritan and a radical is a matter of percepion and political favor with the local Inquisitorial Conclave, rather than one's willingness to "stick to the rules", because Inquisitors aren't bound by any rules to begin with.

In fact, from a "legal" standpoint, Inquisitors are perfectly allowed to deal with daemons and sacrifice entire populations to chaos if they want to. Technically they haven't commited any "crime", because they are second only to the Emperor himself. But you can be **** sure that the other Inquisitors won't accept such behaviour, and will most likely have the radical excommunicated as a traitor for these acts.

In fact, if every Inquisitor in the galaxy one day decided that they will all serve the chaos god slaanesh, then there wouldn't be any imperial instituion that would have any legal right to prosecute them for doing so. Of course, the chance that it would actually happen is near impossible to begin with, but it doesn't change the fact that it would be within every Inquisitor's legal right to do so if they wish. They are an all-powerful, self-regulating authority, above the scrutiny of all other Imperial organizations, after all.

Varnias Tybalt said:

With exception of ANOTHER Inquisitor(s)*. This is why constant internal struggle which many people thinks is contraproductive, makes Inquisition such an effective or at least, still functioning organisation.

*and maybe Astartes, whose relation with Inquisition and it´s authority is little bit hazy. And don´t forget the illegal ways (Mechanicus and Ecclesiarchy (latter especialy during Vandire times) are main guys to blame). And, if you believe in utterly apocalyptic stories of end of 41st Millenium, don´t forget the Emperor himself:P

TorogTarkdacil said:

I said:

"if EVERY Inquisitor in the galaxy" in my example, didn't I?

This is why constant internal struggle which many people thinks is contraproductive, makes Inquisition such an effective or at least, still functioning organisation.

Well, the constant internal struggle is actually quite counter productive on a micro management scale. What the internal struggle in the Inquisition does is making sure that Inquisitors don't band together and start abusing their power too much. That still doesn't make it an effective organisation though, but it keeps itself from assuming power of the entire Imperium of man, and will hopefully root out a few heretics in the process.

Well, even if you take ALL inquisitors and give them the same ideals, there´ll surely be another one who would disgree (I understand lack of logic of this sentence, but it´s as iconic to the 40k universe as "when in doubt, blame Adeptus Mechanicus")

To the second part, I wasn´t clear enough it seems. Yes, Inquisition is inefficient, it´s internal struggle controproductive, and their general procedures hard to describe. But it´s possibly best thing what could happen to Imperium after HH.

I've always seen Radicals as a bit more egotistical and sometimes insane while Puritans are overly cautious, sometimes. The Puritan says "No one can use the ways of the Enemy and remain uncorrupted!" while the Radical says "Most can't, but through my strength of will/intelligence/whatever I can and I've done much more than a Radical could." Admittedly there are many shades of Radicalism and Puritainism and an Inquisitor need not be steadfastly one or the other.

The ways of the Radical are much more risky than most will admit and after all, just about every Rogue Inquisitor started as a Radical. However, they can get results.

One tired idea that keeps getting thrown around is that "all Inquisitors eventually become Radicals if they don't die first" and I'm glad that Disciples of the Dark Gods puts forth the opposing view that as Inquisitors age and encounter more and more the ways of the monodominant become more and more attractive. With every rogue psyker put down and every slavering alien killed there is a temptation to simply destroy all that is not good, pure, and human. I like this idea, that Inquisitors become more extreme with time. If using a daemonhost worked this time, why not use it every time? The last time you gave a xenos a chance led to thousands nearly dying. Why not simply kill them all?

Also, I just thought of something. Have any of you played Command and Conquer 3? If not, spoilers abound. Near the end of the GDI campaign two characters both give their opinions about the player using a new and powerful weapon that is based on Tiberium, the substance GDI seeks to eradicate. The "Radical" gives the speech that in a war where everything is at stake you are failing every man, woman, and child you've sworn to protect if you don't use every weapon in your arsenal and every opportunity you get. The "Puritan" says that use of the weapon would set a dangerous precedent that would end with dependence on Tiberium.

Replace "Tiberium" with "Sorcery" or the like and you have a pretty good example of Radicals vs. Puritans in my opinion.

But at the same time, an Inquisitor might be considered a Radical if that Inquisitors orders the virus bombing of an entire world as well, depending on exactly how much evidence that Inquisitor has of cult activity.

Er... do you have a source for that? An Inquisitor may be considered stupid and dangerous for ordering Exterminatus on a world that isn't really, really lost to The Enemy, but Radicalism and Puritanism aren't divided along that line. Or rather, they sometimes are, but the other way around: "Burn it and the world it's standing on!" is usually the last resort when you've run out of other methods, which naturally happens sooner if your methods don't include all the little toys found in the radical's toolbox.

Cifer said:

Fundamentally, IMO, the difference between Radicalism and Puritanism is orthodoxy. It's not about good or evil, but about the accepted and the unconventional... at least at the very subtlest of levels. A puritan's actions are acceptable not because he's a "good guy" - many extreme puritans are genocidal maniacs with a desire to bring about the utter annihilation of everything that doesn't fit their narrow description of 'human' - but because they follow the lines laid out by the Imperial Creed and the Lex Imperialis.

It's not a linear progression from one to the other, either. Monodominants often work closely with Istvaanians, the former seeing the warmongering of the latter as valuable and righteous, even though Istvaanians are generally deemed to be Radical (because they incite war supposedly to strengthen mankind). Similarly, Thorians - and all Resurrectionists - are dangerously unconventional in their beliefs that the Emperor can be reborn to walk amongst Men once more, and according to the history in the Thorian Sourcebook for Inquisitor, were initially considered a rogue element by the newly-formed Inquisition. The matter might be better (but not with complete accuracy) described as a circle, with extreme puritanism verging closer and closer to unorthodox methods as they take their beliefs to what they see as the natural conclusion (kill all witches and mutants must surely include Astropaths and Navigators, right?)

Cifer said:

Yes, "usually" the last resort. But what's to say that certain Inquisitors who believe themselves to be "puritan" haven't ordered an exterminatus on a world based on pretty flimsy reasons?

There is a rather fine line between being "stupid and dangerous" and being "a radical" you know. The reason why most Inquisitors dislike radicals is because they are seen as stupid and/or dangerous becuase they mess with forces of the warp and try to use the enemies weapons against them.

If a supposed puritan goes on and ordering the immediate destruction of a world that could have been saved if he/she had just bothered to put aside his or her zealous ways for a moment and not consider the entire world to be "impure" just because one little heretical cult arose on that particular world, then that "puritan" would instantly be considered a radical instead.

The resources of an entire world is not something that can just be thrown away because one Inquisitor has a narcissistic preference to keep a world completely "pure" of heretical or xenos taint, and if one such Inquisitor would be found out by his or her peers for doing such a thing, it's not like they would just go:

-"Oh Bob! Couldn't you have just assembled a few Storm troopers squads and killed off that pesky and insignificant little cult instead of annihilating the entire planet? They didn't have much influence over that society overall anyway, you sillybear. Now we're not going to invite you to our next Inquisitorial christmas party because of this little slip-up of yours. Shame on you."

Of course, now you might be saying: "No Inquisitor would do such a thing in the first place. They would ONLY use exterminatus as a last resort and nothing less."

However I'd have to say that I doubt that, considering how completely bonkers some Inquisitors (even the puritan ones) can be. And the fact that once hey have their rosette, it's not like they have to attend any mandatory counseling sessions to see if they are "alright in the head".

This leads me to the conclusion that if an Inquisitor were to use exterminatus in a manner considered too arbitrary by his or her peers, then that Inquisitor would be considered either an incompetent lunatic, unfit for service or a radical. Regardless of that Inquisitor's previous reputation.

Cifer said:

I thought exactly the same thing. I would describe an Inquisitor that is fond of exterminatus as more of a puritan than a radical. Consider Inquisitor Rykehuss, DH p318. He is a very puritan, very hardline inquisitor. He thinks it is good practice to burn innocents, since it makes the vitnessing citicen fear the Imperium more than they fear the witch. It is not your motivations for violence, the terror you spread or your disregard for civilian life that sorts puritans from radicals. It is what tools you use.

If something the puritans cause more collateral damage to the Imperium. Puritans use imperial soldiers to fight street to street through billion-populated towns, where the chaos cult could have been infiltrated and shattered by having their leaders killed by a radical acolyte willing to hazard their eternal soul on their conviction that the Emperor clearly can see that they are only pretending to participate in the blood sacrifices. Puritans call in the Imperial Fleet to be massacred in a glorious battle against an owerwhelming hivefleet, thus leaving entire sectors defenseless for generations, when a foresighted radical with some cleverly placed and nurtured genestealer cults could have lead the tyranid fleet into ork space with no bigger costs than a dozen systems sacrificed. Puritans burn all captured specimens of a newly encountered daemon, thus sending endless platoons of guardsmen to their deaths trying to figure out how they fight, while a radical would bind it and set augurs on learning about it's abilities.

A puritan would kill a planetary governor that has skimmed the imperial tithes, without considerations of the misery, destruction and lack of productivity that will follow when the now dead ladys uncle, children-less-husband and her illegitimate-son-from-before-she-manipulated-and-murdered-her-way-to-the-throne (who has been growing up as a simple shepherd oblivious to his patronage) fight it out over the issue of inheritance. A radical would play the parties against eachother to solve the conflict first, support the strongest one to a clear and overwhelming victory, and then make him understand who manipulated things, then publicly execute the ex governor for crimes against the Imperium.

By the way, the Rules of Narrativity states that the shepherd kid is the best bet in this conflict (compared to an evil step parent or a powerhungry uncle). His simple life as a shepherds son has taught him to see the kindness in every humans heart and to care for every lost sheep. He will face hardship and conflicts through a humble demeanor, a clear mind, the help of good friends* and the power of True Love. Eventually the Evil will bring about it's own destruction through at least two of the seven classical sins, often Greed and Pride, and the Good will triumph through the blood magic that comes from having the right genes (a very popular theory in europe early-middle 1900) wich grants a willingness to great personal sacrifice and adherence to traditional values!... No, that's not right. Hold on a moment... ah, wrong game. Sorry bout that. I'd go with the uncle.

* Of these good friends one is a beatiful, slightly older female priestess of a nearly extinct nature-romantic religion. Another is an old bearded male advisor that knows everything about the boys heritage and feeds it to him bit by bit when the story needs a little emo-drama ("Oh no, the evil tyrant is my true mother!" [massive inherited guilt]) for the main character to eventually face and overcome to show "character growth". One or two will be humorous sidekicks of the main characters approximate background and age that does stupid things, only to contrast how wise, noble and responsible the hero is.

Mellon said:

That doesn't necessarily mean that Rykehuss would put Scintilla on to the torch by exterminatus just because he suspects that there is cult activity on the planet.

You see, burning people to strike fear in their kin wouldn't be very radical, mainly because life is cheap in the Imperium and people can be easily replaced. But destroying an entire world is going to take a huge blow on sector economy and the tithes in general, which will cause other worlds involved in trade with the destroyed world to suffer a downward spiral in their economy. Which will by extension cause more starvation and poverty among the people on those worlds, and will of course give rise to more heretical thinking and cult activity than usual. Meaning: "more work for the already over-strained Inquisition".

Also, exterminatus is not a tool used to "strike fear" into imperial citizens, mainly because the majority of Imperial citizens in the rest of the sector won't even know that the exterminatus has taken place, nor how many people died in it. It's not like they have a "Calixis Sector Newscast" for every citizen to see the burning world in question with some cheesy news-anchor telling the people: "So good folks, stay pure and devoted to the Emperor, otherwise the Inquisition might do THAT to your homeworld... Here's Tom with the weather "

Exterminatus is supposed to be the last resort, used when the Inquisition has failed. You could say that each exterminatus performed is a testament to the failure of the Inquisition, and it wouldn't be something that sane and puritan Inquisitors would order lightly. The insane and "overly-puritan" ones with delusions of grandeur however, might order the burning of an entire world on a whim.

Whimsical exterminatii commited would be considered a radical action, even amongst puritan Inquisitors privy to the facts of what happened on that world. If they ever see proof that the exterminatus could have been avoided, the Inquisitor ordering it would be suspected to have a radical inclination.

It's not really a question of the genocidal aspects of it (as I said, life is cheap in the Imperium), but rather the reckless destruction of a massive resource vital to the Imperium, and whose destruction might just give rise to even more heretical thinking in the sector at large.