Are the prominent Inquisitors throughout the galaxy officially sanctioned in the same way that Psykers are as presented in Dark Heresy? None of them seem to suffer from the terrible maladies and side effects as described in the core rules. Is there some other process that the Psykana trains psykers of particular talent or will?

They are officially trained and recognized.. Ravenor makes reference to using psykana techniques. Eisenhorn spent time on a Black Ship. Generally, Inquisitors are a cut above the standard psyker, in terms of will if not raw power.

Short answer, yes. In fact, I'd say that an unsanctioned Psyker could never become an Inquisitor barring extraordinary circumstances.

I'd also keep in mind the "fettered, unfettered, push" system that's in Rogue Trader and will be in Ascension. The powers that Eisenhorn, for example, uses are generally subtle so I'd say that in game you would represent him as using "fettered" so no chance of bad stuff happening. Ravenor is a bit of a different case as he is so powerful as a Psyker but even so I think that system is a good representation.

Also, remember that bad stuff does occasionally happen to our heroes, such as the near disaster Eisenhorn and... that other Inquisitor suffer when they journey into the dying heretic's mind in Xenos.

And finally, I agree with LuciusT. Inquisitors are considerably more willful and more powerful Psychically than the freshly Sanctioned Psyker that a Psyker Acolyte represents.

Interesting, I do not remember Eisenhorn mentioning that he spent time on a Black Ship nor Ravenor speaking of his Psykana training. Do you happen to remember which of their respective books this appeared in?

I was suggesting that it does not appear like these Inquisitors have been sanctioned because neither of them display any of the truly severe style side effects like those found in the "Sideaffects of Sanctioning" section. We don't see any reconstructed skulls, unspeakable dementia, gothic dental probes, Emperor sex fetishes or horrific scarring. Are you guys suggesting that since they were of "greater will" that they did not need these "techniques" to be properly sanctioned?

Woah, wait. I thought you meant side-effects from using powers. Aha, you meant that table. I agree, no psychic Inquisitor seems to have any bad ones. However, I would say that Psykers that had a reconstructed skull probably wouldn't become Inquisitors. You need all the smarts you can get .

Also, many of the side-effects are minor, hard to see, or could be overcome. Hunted? Could be overcome and isn't really noticeable. Bad memories? Not really noticeable. Horror? Could be overcome/not really Inquisition material. Nerve induction? Not that noticeable/gone if you get your hand replaced. Dental probes? Kinda weird but you could get your teeth replaced. Optical rupture? Plently of people have bionic eyes. Vox inducer? Replaceable. No hair? Wierd, but it happens. Tongue bound? To me, having this means that the Inquisition saw you as especially vulnerable to dark influences. Not Inquisition material. Throne Wed? Minor. Witch prickling? This one can't really be hidden but it is not that bad. Hypno-doctrination? Could be broken perhaps.

So it's possible they do or did have Sanctioning side effects, just that they overcame them or we didn't see them. Also, since they are such extraordinary Psykers perhaps they were strong enough that they didn't even get one.

Sp00ky said:

Eisenhorn mentions having a subcutaneous ident marker removed by the Black Ships in Xenos, Chapter 3. Ravenor mentions using pyskana techniques, in Ravenor, Now (second prologue).

For the Sanctioning Effects, as numb3rc suggests they may be fairly minor. The game mechanics results range from non-existent, to a modest amount of Insanity or at the most extreme some cyberwear, a new talent or even bonus to a characteristic. The flavor text is just that, flavor text and can, IMO, shouldn't considered exhaustive. It simply represents the idea that Sanctioning can be traumatic. However, I think someone with the strength will and character to become an Inquisitor would be someone who would survive or even thrive in such adversity without extreme adverse effects... or perhaps those who thrive in such adversity without extreme adverse effects are marked out as candidates for training as Inquisitors.

It's important to remember that the term "sanctioned psyker" generally refers to an Adepta Astratelepathicus trained and conditioned psyker. When the Black Ships deliver their cargo certain institutions skim a chunk of the most likely candidates off the top. The Grey Knights, the Adeptus Astartes, and of course the Inquisition are among these groups. They have their own methods and training and conditioning their psykers and of course they are dealing with the pick of the crop. The Inquisition also recruits personnel as needed from other organizations and some of them rise to the top, so some psyker-inquisitors will have gone through the rite of sanctioning, but others won't. Eisenhorn, for example, has memories of being an interrogator in his twenties so its highly unlikely that he was pulled from the Adeptus Astrotelepathicus. Patience Kyss, Ravenor's agent, is a potent and stable psyker while a teenage runaway and recruited into Ravenor's clique without ever being sanctioned. Space Marine Librarians go through their own Chapter rites, which might be even more demanding, but do not go through the Adeptus Astrotelepathicus rites of sanctioning.

Cynical Cat said:

She must still be a legitimate psyker, however - she's sanctioned in the sense that the Imperium considers her to be legal (which is, essentially, what Sanctioning in the more specific sense is about - ensuring that an individual psyker is sufficiently stable and potent to be of use to the Imperium). That she doesn't discuss any testing of her powers does not mean that it never happened, merely that there was nothing within the Ravenor storyline that would cause her to comment upon it (unsurprising, given her tendancy to obfuscate her past) - psykers are too dangerous to simply be allowed to wander around without some kind of examination.

Dan Abnett's treatment of psykers in his Inquisition novels is frankly inconsistent with what we're told everywhere else about them, IMO - he presents off-hand mentions of a then-undefined grading system that has resulted in people assuming that it's the only way to classify psykers, a tendancy to ignore the long-standing background about the League of Blackships (missing out Sanctioning Side-Effects is understandable; they didn't appear until a later draft of the Dark Heresy rules anyway), and similarly ignore the blindness of Astropaths; the potential instability of psykers in general is also dispensed with (none of the psykers in the Eisenhorn or Ravenor trilogies seems to demonstrate anything other than absolute control over their powers, even the seemingly-abundant assortments of rogue psykers that frequently act as secondary antagonists, and even the phenomena caused by Ravenor 'letting loose' is more incidental than anything else)... they're treated more like the powers of Jedi Knights most of the time, rather than beings for whom insanity, corruption and daemonic possession are very real risks.

Quite frankly, if psykers in the Imperium were like those depicted in Abnett's Inquisition novels, the Imperium would seldom need to round them up in large numbers for the safety of the population - they're not exactly unstable, seem not to be at risk of the perils of the Warp (which, it should be noted, is quite peril-free in Abnett's version of 40k - Warp Travel is safe and apparently inconsequential as well, and can be performed by Servitors) and seem entirely normal when not making use of their generally subtle abilities.

Abnett's not really alone in that though. In most of the older 40k stories I've read, which is to say the Inquisition War series and the short stories collected in Deathwing, psykers have control of their abilities and perils of the warp aren't something that are generally seen - unless they are a plot point. Psychic Phenomena in the Dark Heresy sense, as far as I've seen, was introduced by Abentt. In fact, Abnett seems to have introduced a lot of things that are now accepted parts of 40k canon. I'd hazard to guess that he's the most influential 40k background writer outside of the original GW studio staff... which is probably why he is either loved or hated by so many 40k fans.

Kyss is clearly sanctioned in some way, probably by Inquisition testing and conditioning, but absolutely nothing is indicated that she was ever a part of the Adeptus Astratelepathicus. And that's fine. It's a well established fact that the Inquisition, the Grey Knights, and the Astartes train and condition their own members.

I'm not sure where the idea that Abnett doesn't include the Black Ships comes from. They're clearly present in his Gaunt's Ghosts series and psychic side effects, while not quite occurring as if one is rolling on the DH side effects table, occur fairly frequently in his writing. I can't think of another writer who has them manifest as frequently or spectacularly with telepathic battles blowing out windows and flipping cars, Heldane's spectacular detonation upon his death being higher end examples and the now somewhat cliche ice showing up frequently. On the insanity front the Alpha Pluses are outright insane, minor cultist and sorcerers frequently give the impression of being damaged goods, and the sorceress in Blood Pact is quite insane and her powers are portrayed as volatile and dangerous. On the stress front Eisenhorn almost killed himself unleashing the vortex of destruction. Only in Death shows some Sanctioned Psykers in truly horrific shape, physically and mentally, with their handlers regarding them like unstable explosives.. As for astropaths, the only one that I remember who could see had cybernetic eyes.

Cynical Cat said:

The above is entirely accurate. The notion that Abnett does not represent the side effects, phenomena, danger and instability of psykers is false. As is the notion that he does not include the Black Ships. A major character in the gaunts ghosts is taken by a ship, another barely dodges it, a third comes back from imperial sanctioning in the most horrid condition imaginable.

As I'm currently in the middle of reading Hereticus right now, I can vouch for at least one peril of the Warp that happened in the last chapter I read, because when the same thing happens in our DH games, someone in our party always mutters, "frickin' psyker!" Someone jammed Eisenhorn's gun.

I much prefer Abnetts "Jedi handwave" approach to sanctioning for my players tbh.

I really dislike the "Sanctioned" trait for player Psykers. The side effects seem much more in keeping with those disposables dropped into the Guard psyker units, and the extra 3d10 years age can really ruin a players character concept (since juvenat treatments are likely beyond a starting character).


I'm more inclined to simply say that player Psykers can pick whatever cosmetic/psychological quirks they want, if indeed they want any. They should still have a sanctioning mark, but they can pick where and how large/visible it is.


After all, a guy with his head held together by iron bands, sanctioning mark emblazoned on his cheeks is going to really suck at the kinds of undercover work that Acolytes might be expected to do.

That said, I dont think Tech Priests should be available as characters either, but thats another issue .

Torquar said:

That's because DH psyker pcs ARE the disposables that get chucked into the guard psyker combat squads.

Zamnil Blackaxe said:

But PC's should always be something special, more in common with the younger Eisenhorn, Patience or even Heldane back in the beginning of his career before he turned into a freakshow than with the wreckage of Agun Soric.

Now if one of my players wanted to play a gibbering tattoo'd oddball psyker, with all of the difficulties that would entail then I certainly wouldnt stop them. I wouldnt force it as the only way to play though. Mr Abnett seems to agree with me if his protagonists are anything to go by .

Apologies to the OP for a little derailment btw.

Torquar said:

Now if one of my players wanted to play a gibbering tattoo'd oddball psyker, with all of the difficulties that would entail then I certainly wouldnt stop them. I wouldnt force it as the only way to play though. Mr Abnett seems to agree with me if his protagonists are anything to go by .

His protagonists also tend to sit higher up in terms of status and heirarchy. By the start of the second Eisenhorn novel, he has a vast network of agents and contacts, yet we only see a handful of them - broadly speaking, the most important ones. An Acolyte cell as standard won't be rubbing shoulders with their Inquisitor in most circumstances... that is, afterall, what Ascension is designed to cover with its Throne Agents.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Torquar said:

Now if one of my players wanted to play a gibbering tattoo'd oddball psyker, with all of the difficulties that would entail then I certainly wouldnt stop them. I wouldnt force it as the only way to play though. Mr Abnett seems to agree with me if his protagonists are anything to go by .

His protagonists also tend to sit higher up in terms of status and heirarchy. By the start of the second Eisenhorn novel, he has a vast network of agents and contacts, yet we only see a handful of them - broadly speaking, the most important ones. An Acolyte cell as standard won't be rubbing shoulders with their Inquisitor in most circumstances... that is, afterall, what Ascension is designed to cover with its Throne Agents.

Which is where once again disagree with the original design of Dark Heresy. I don't know anyone who wants to play a disposable mook. PCs should be the heroes of the story. IMO, Ascension is (in concept if not execution) what Dark Heresy should have been. Ross got it right when he was talking about Rogue: PCs shouldn't have to wait to become cool. They should start out cool.

In short, I agree with Torquar. The PCs should be something special. Even if they are "just starting out" in the Dark Heresy model, they should be people who at least can become Eisenhorn, Patience or Heldane. I mean, even those characters were young and pathetic once (albeit some years before the appear in the books).

LuciusT said:

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Torquar said:

Now if one of my players wanted to play a gibbering tattoo'd oddball psyker, with all of the difficulties that would entail then I certainly wouldnt stop them. I wouldnt force it as the only way to play though. Mr Abnett seems to agree with me if his protagonists are anything to go by .

His protagonists also tend to sit higher up in terms of status and heirarchy. By the start of the second Eisenhorn novel, he has a vast network of agents and contacts, yet we only see a handful of them - broadly speaking, the most important ones. An Acolyte cell as standard won't be rubbing shoulders with their Inquisitor in most circumstances... that is, afterall, what Ascension is designed to cover with its Throne Agents.

Which is where once again disagree with the original design of Dark Heresy. I don't know anyone who wants to play a disposable mook. PCs should be the heroes of the story. IMO, Ascension is (in concept if not execution) what Dark Heresy should have been. Ross got it right when he was talking about Rogue: PCs shouldn't have to wait to become cool. They should start out cool.

In short, I agree with Torquar. The PCs should be something special. Even if they are "just starting out" in the Dark Heresy model, they should be people who at least can become Eisenhorn, Patience or Heldane. I mean, even those characters were young and pathetic once (albeit some years before the appear in the books).

I like playing as disposable mooks. I've played mortals in nWoD, NPC classes in the one or two games of DnD I played, and why? Because it's fun and interesting.

I'll be sad if everyone runs to Ascension and never bothers playing a non-Ascension game again, as it would mean a lot of the fun of clawing your way up the ranks and surviving by the skin of your teeth is lost.

MILLANDSON said:

You're quite welcome to enjoy that, if that's the kind of game you enjoy. I, however, disagree. Mind you, I'm not interested in playing god-level characters. I dislike the very idea of Epic level D&D. I too actually have enjoyed mortals in WoD and think some of the NPCs in D&D are more interesting than the core classes. I'm not overly fond of the increased base stats in Rogue Trader and I don't really like the idea that Ascension character will be rank 9+. Personally, I think characters around rank 4-5 are the most interesting to me... competent enough to be heroic but not so overarching as to be comic book-ish super-heroic. However, it's the concept of it rather than the anything else... a mortal surrounded by vampires and werewolves, an expert or aristocrat in a band of treasure hunting magical mercs, is still an extraodinary mortal, expert or aristocrat no matter how his game mechanics compare. He or she is still a hero, perhaps even moreso because he lacks the super-heroic abilities of his peers... and there is an awareness of that.

Dark Heresy characters don't seem to me to have that. There is such an emphasis on just how much Dark Heresy characters are lowly mooks, as seen by the fact of this discussion. It's axiomatic that Dark Heresy cannot be heroic... they cannot stand shoulder to shoulder with Inquisitors. They aren't "real" agents of the Inquisitor (despite what the book promises us) because that role is for Throne Agents. This, despite the implication of the rank system they characters can be Guard Officers, Arbites Marshals, Adeptus Scholars, etc... but still lowly mooks. Unlike the mortal surround by vampires, who is hero simply by being there, the acolyte, no matter how skilled, is still just a mook.

So, I disagree.

LuciusT said:

Surely that makes them all the more heroic - they aren't necessarily veteran servants of the Inquisition, they aren't inherently trusted with its secrets or its power... and yet are expected - rather, required - to step out into a hostile galaxy and delve into things best left un-delved. They're the footsoldiers of a secret war, the ones who get involved first. They might not possess world-shattering authority or exceptional skill, but it's their actions that make them heroes, not their abilities.

A Space Marine has no fears to face. An Inquisitor has seen it all before and has hardened himself to ignore it... Acolytes are yet to face their fears and yet to be tested... and that's the fun of it.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

No, because that it's the attitude at all. This is...

Zamnil Blackaxe said:

Heroes are "the disposables."

What you describe, the foot soldiers in the secret war, yet to be tested, blah, blah, blah... yeah, that's heroic. But that's not the prevailing attitude I see in this community. The prevailing attitude, which I quoted, is that the PCs are the disposables, the mooks, the cannon fodder... because obviously they cann't be more than that... they are too pathetic and we are told time and again, in the rules, that they will never good enough to stand shoulder to shoulder with their masters.

If "foot soldiers in the secret war" is what the game designers were aiming for, IMO they missed the mark widely... and not by game mechanics but by attitude and presentation.

Take a look at what sort of skills and talents the suggested NPCs have in the core book. Now take a look at how many and what kind the PCs receive over the course of their adventures. There's a noticeable difference, especially as the ranks go on and the PCs tear away from the ranks of faceless mooks.

Acolytes might be 'disposable' in comparison to an inquisitor, but once they break past rank 2 an acolyte still has a far better assortment of tools under his belt than the average 40k everyman.

'Disposable' doesn't necessarily mean 'worthless'. It just means that their loss is acceptable given the stakes.

LuciusT said:

It's the Imperium; everyone is disposable, from the most legendary, revered Inquisitor, to the manufactorum workers and narco-scum of the deepest hive district.

Arguably the most interesting teams of Inquisitorial agents represent a mix of levels. In the Ravenor books it's clear that his (relatively small) team consisted of rank novices, mid ranking former guardsmen and elite prime agents.