Well that's the logical error that's been bugging me, dvang, having a career entitled "Inquisitor" has caused a good number of people to assume that it's mandatory to be a memeber of said career to earn a Rosette. The ongoing argument is that Inquisitors are far too diverse and interesting to be bound by a single common skillset as defined by the Inquisitor career the Ascention book, and that the Inquisitor Career is, while valid, also generic and not necessarily appealing to every Inquisitor as their choice of pregression and therefore should not be forced on the unlucky party leader for the sake of, well, nothing . And just as importantly it has been pointed out that there is absolutely no impact on the mechanics or stability of the game whatsoever, as they were intended for just this sort of thing, rather than Influence being tied to one class as it would have been in an "Inquisitors must take this thing" scenario.

Then angry conservative flaming happened. Such is life.

Morangias said:

Those are a bit extreme, but I'll give it a shot. Firstly, not all possible combinations work equally well, obviously, and the mechanics get in the way of the proposed combinations, but at least one is quite doable.

Elite Advances are great for Storm Troopers, they get shafted so badly in those early ranks that most GMs I play with would give them a discount on Elite Advances or some freebies out of pity. If by "Advances from the Vindicare career" you mean he wants to use the Vindicare career to represent an Imperial Guard Sniper who did not train at the Vindicare Temple, then it's up to you and your GM to work out how you got those Unnatural Characteristics and super Dodging ability. Thing with Vindicares is that they're in the same boat as Magos, the boat we argue Inquisitors are not in. That is the boat of clear and narrow definition. It's not a bad boat, but Magos can only realistically represent a Tech-Preist for obvious reasons, and Vindicares have capabilities that mortal men cannot attain without training and augmentation. If you can justify the training some other way, there's no real reason to say no to their request, but by that token the Vindicare Assassin, and Magos, are both the products very unique and clearly defined, extensive, life-altering training and physical/mental transformation.

As for the Desperado/Adept? Easy! Sounds like Indiana Jones to me. He'll be rolling in lore skills and abilities from Adept, already have Unnatural Intellect x2 (or even x3 with Implants) and can buy Forbidden Lore Mastery as an Elite Advance. Ballistic Skill and Fellowship are moderately priced, but still affordable. Someone playing with the Sage career will out-know him, but you'll still pass pretty much every roll and will need little to no Elite Advances to get the desired result of a very knowledgeable and proactive scholar who can gun-fight and schmooze with crims on the side. I'm going to write that down, sounds like a lot of fun to play.

Great. At this point, why not just do away with Careers altogether and keep to Elite Advancements?

Frankly, I don't care about all your examples from novels. I care about what Dark Heresy as a game line tells, and Ascension is very straightforward in stating that only the guy who takes the Inquisitor career has the Rosette and gets to call himself an Inquisitor.

If you don't like it for your game, change it, but don't try to sell others bull about it being supported in Ascension, because it's not more supported than any other house rule you may make.

Opinion noted, couldn't disagree more with such draconian "is not" statements, but noted. Maybe you missed the part right at the start where we asked for opinions? Off you go!

Morangias said:

Okay, you had to be sarcastic didn't you? Because as I recall while not completely saying to do with the V.A. you said as written they were overpowered and needed a nerf...Hmmm, wait a second, isn't that not true to the game line? But you changed it because you saw it as broken, same deal here, someone saw something they didn't like, and posted why they felt that way. Most of the debate at no point listed it as being a part of the game, they where more canonical and situational debates.

Morangias said:

The Adept->Desperado one is a shoe-in for me, if the player has accurately demonstrated that that's the sort of playstyle their character runs. If he's been a shady, conniving, gunslinging Adept in a prior life (Gunmetal City much?), sure, I'd totally roll with it.

The Vindicare is a little harder to justify, but that's due to apprehensions I have with the career being balanced in it's own regard rather than any fluff-twiddling. It would take a bit more justification to explain the ability to gain SB, TB, and ABs over 10 and over 9000 dodges, but if they had a good enough reason I'd roll with it, again. I wouldn't worry about it any more than someone electing to be an actual Vindicare, because my reservations lie with the power of the class.

I would make a point of mentioning to the player, however, that tey can probably kiss any of the specialised Vindicare equipment goodbye though unless they've got some very good connections, because fluffwise they are not a member of the Temple, just 'built' according to one.

As for your touching on the nature of providing Elite Advances all round:

I like the careers systems because they offer a good, reasonably versatile (at least in DH, in RT and Ascension I've been very disappointed) range of skills, talents, and other abilities to roughly represent that 'archetype' of character, not necessarily a be-all-end-all. People pick a career in my games based on what kind of character they want to play, not a set role in society. If they feel they need an Elite Advance for something that isn't covered in that career's path they are more than free to approach me about an Elite Advance.

I've had an assassin (Nrvnqsr, for those who've heard of him in other tales) who went down the more talky option, as he figured it fit his "Noble Malfian businessman" approach (running a member of the noble caste using the Hive World background? Oh shock horror!) more than the kill-crazy deathcultist. But he was bummed that he couldn't take Step Aside, because it's only present on that side of the career tree. Fair enough, you say. Tough luck but that's what you get for specialising on social combat and not training your agility.

Nrvnqsr has Agility 50 and Unnatural Agility x2. He was **** well going to qualify for Step Aside.

A bit of extra XP and some downtime later, and he walked out of his training academy with a net profit of one reaction.

That all being said, for the most part I find the careers justify the rough archetype of the character the player wants to play. Ie, the Imperial Psyker career offers roughly what my psyker player wants to play. The Scum career offers roughly what our Scum player wants to play his character as. If they want something more they need only ask, but for the most part it suffices. n the subject of Inquisitors, I do not believe the one career list offers enough for an Inquisitor, as it is not versatile enough (an impossibility I believe, for it to comprehensively cover anything but the 'default' inquisitor archetype) to cover all forms of Inquisitors my players and I would play. Much like any other career, althought for the most part they do their job better if only for the sake of Inquisitors being a more versatile lot than guardsmen, theoretically speaking.

Therefore, I am willing to let people play a career other than Inquisitor as a "Counts-As" Inquisitor if a few Elite Advances won't do the job sufficiently (though that's an option too if it was all that was needed), because it is easily justifiable in-universe that an Inquisitor pursues their objectives and development in a manner they wish to, not being shoehorned into a particular box because some in-game mechanics recognise something else as a "default".

To each his own, I guess. I've been playing Warhammer ever since Fantasy Roleplay First Edition, and I've always liked "your Profession is what you do, how you do it and how the world sees you" much better than D&D-style "your Class is a rough archetype, now build a character however you like by mixing those". This, and I feel the Inquisitor career in Ascension is the only one properly describing how I feel the Inquisitor should work mechanically.

Morangias said:

Except people, you know, don't usually work like that. Maybe in a heavily-regimented position of servitude, like a guardsman or a low-ranking techpriest, but not everyone and anyone.

At the very least, not an Inquisitor.

The Hobo Hunter said:

I disagree. The inquisitor may have relatively more freedom than some other careers, but he's still duty-bound to perform specific services for the Empire of Man. He's the Empire's top special agent , not top anything he wants to be. Not a religious icon, not a sniper of a secretive assassins order, not a warrior of faith, not a peerless loremaster, not a criminal mastermind. He's the Inquisitor, the guy who coordinates all those guys and covers for them through the unquestionable authority of the Rosette.

Seriously, if you think mechanics and fluff of careers are interchangeable, what's the point of having Careers at all? And more specifically, what's the point of careers having any fluff? What's the point of Sages being reputed masters of lore if I can take Desperado advances and special traits and still call myself a Sage? Why would Officio Assassins have such dark reputation if you believe their special traits and advances could represent a Storm Trooper training as well?

Clearly, you don't like the career system as it is. I, on the other hand, like it and don't like to see it butchered in the way some people here propose. Obviously, I'm not going to track any of you down and burn your books for "doing it wrong". I'm not going to admit you're right, either, because I deeply believe you're not. So perhaps we should note each other's opinion and agree to disagree.

"I disagree. The inquisitor may have relatively more freedom than some other careers, but he's still duty-bound to perform specific services for the Empire of Man."

"Relatively more freedom" is something of a conservative appraisal, more like "Tremendous personal and operational freedom with near-zero oversight or accountability for all but the most extreme actions taken in service to Him on Earth."

"He's the Empire's top special agent, not top anything he wants to be. Not a religious icon, not a sniper of a secretive assassins order, not a warrior of faith, not a peerless loremaster, not a criminal mastermind. He's the Inquisitor, the guy who coordinates all those guys and covers for them through the unquestionable authority of the Rosette."

That's just the thing, he/she has the authority to do as he/she pleases, including secure whatever training he/she desires or continue to develop their skillset along it's previous paths. Not a religious Icon? Probably not unless the Inquisitor were cannonised within his or her lifetime, which he/she would probably resist in order to preserve a measure of anonymity. Sainthood is possible and has happened to Inquisitors in the setting, but an Inquisitor who is deeply pious, strongly tied to the Ecclesiarchy and possessess monstrous skill at melee combat and social interaction? That works equally well as either an Inquisitor using the Cleric/Inquisitor templates or as an Inquisitor of the Cleric/Heirophant setup. A Warrior of Faith? Seen anyone from the Ordo Hereticus lately? An Inquisitor can't be a peerless loremaster? They have unrestricted access to almost any source of knowledge in Human hands, even prohibited ones. No reason they couldn't, you know, study some of those books, and one's station has no bearing on one's Intelligence, which is the other hallmark of the Sage career.

"Seriously, if you think mechanics and fluff of careers are interchangeable, what's the point of having Careers at all? And more specifically, what's the point of careers having any fluff? What's the point of Sages being reputed masters of lore if I can take Desperado advances and special traits and still call myself a Sage? Why would Officio Assassins have such dark reputation if you believe their special traits and advances could represent a Storm Trooper training as well?"

That's the negative argument shovelling less than ideal but serviceable ideas into a discussion about Inquisitors to try and bolster their argument. Although interestingly one of those suggestions works quite well if you wanted to play a loremaster who aggressively seeks lore, and has less lore and more scummy skills as a result (ie; Adept+Desperado = Indiana Jones). Either way his meta-path shouldn't inherently bar him from being a member of the Administratum in character or a known Lexographer for example. And point aside, "Sage" isn't an honored title or an official rank in the setting, it has no special meaning like titles such as Inquisitor, Navigator or Vindicare Assassin does. And as for the Vindicare Assassin as Stormtrooper point, I never suggested that (but worked with it at your request) as it has nothing to do with Inquisitors, and the Vindicare career, like the Magos (and unlike the Inquisitor), represents a very specific, very rigid aspect in 40k lore, Vindicare Assassins are supercharged killing machines that are uniformally trained and subjected to invasive mental and physical alterations. They could almost come off a production line. With Magos the variations are in the small details, there are many, but they are minor. Both of these archetypes normally walk in very different circles to the Inquisition, both are represented by highly focused career paths and both are prohibited from earning a Rosette within the 40k setting. An Inquisitor with the Vindicare Assassin or Magos careers would be an impossible sell to any GM who knows the lore and aims to stay true to it, there are a multitude of combinations that would not need any changing at all to accurately represent a multitude of canon-Inquisitors.

"Clearly, you don't like the career system as it is. I, on the other hand, like it and don't like to see it butchered in the way some people here propose."

I never said I dislike the Career system and have not argued against it as yet, nor was anyone suggesting anything like the kind of drastic-sounding changes you seem to think we're on about. I was talking about Inquisitors. I'm glad that you enjoy the system and personally find that it serves me quite in the vast majority of cases. As for butchering the rules, I don't know what you mean, but this calls for Science!

Example #1
------
Name: Pheppos Heldane
Careers: Imperial Psyker/ Inquisitor
Divination: Be an Evil, Horse-Faced Inquisitor with the subtlty of a Molitov Cocktail and prodigal Psychic Power when you grow up.
------
Name: Inquisitor Pheppos Heldane
Careers: Imperial Psyker/ Primaris Psyker
Divination: Be an Evil, Horse-Faced Inquisitor with the subtlty of a Molitov Cocktail and prodigal Psychic Power when you grow up.
------
Example #2
------
Name: Inquisitor John Sage
Careers: Adept/Sage
Divination: Be an Inquisitor who solves mysteries with scholastic know-how, loyal bodyguards and a Boltgun when you grow up.
------

Done! No fuss, no difficulties, no conflicts with the rules, the setting or the game mechanics, no rules butchery!

"Obviously, I'm not going to track any of you down and burn your books for "doing it wrong". I'm not going to admit you're right, either, because I deeply believe you're not. So perhaps we should note each other's opinion and agree to disagree."

Just as we equally deeply believe that your standpoint upholds the rules only in the most literal and rigid sense to the exclusion of all else, and is therefore at best needlessly stifling and at worst incorrect and counter to 40k lore on the subject of Inquisitors and their wildly differing approaches and abilities.

The discussion was always about the fact that the Inquisitor career should not be a mandatory choice for the Inquisitor PC. As a career option it's fine and serves as a "Vanilla" Inquisitor template quite well. But it does not and cannot represent every creed and denomination of Inquisitor out there, they're just too diverse!

So, like you said, we'll have to agree to disagree, high five for civility!

I figured just because we agreed to disagree, doesn't mean we can't argue some more, in a friendly and civil way of course

"I disagree. The inquisitor may have relatively more freedom than some other careers, but he's still duty-bound to perform specific services for the Empire of Man."

"Relatively more freedom" is something of a conservative appraisal, more like "Tremendous personal and operational freedom with near-zero oversight or accountability for all but the most extreme actions taken in service to Him on Earth."

It is my firm belief that this tremendous freedom is supposed to be used for hunting down threats to the Empire of Man, and that the Inquisition chooses new candidates based on whether they're willing to embrace this duty whole cloth, rather than wasting time for learning secret faith-healing techniques of Hierophants or undergoing advanced hellgun training with the Imperial Guard's finest.

"He's the Empire's top special agent, not top anything he wants to be. Not a religious icon, not a sniper of a secretive assassins order, not a warrior of faith, not a peerless loremaster, not a criminal mastermind. He's the Inquisitor, the guy who coordinates all those guys and covers for them through the unquestionable authority of the Rosette."

That's just the thing, he/she has the authority to do as he/she pleases, including secure whatever training he/she desires or continue to develop their skillset along it's previous paths. Not a religious Icon? Probably not unless the Inquisitor were cannonised within his or her lifetime, which he/she would probably resist in order to preserve a measure of anonymity. Sainthood is possible and has happened to Inquisitors in the setting, but an Inquisitor who is deeply pious, strongly tied to the Ecclesiarchy and possessess monstrous skill at melee combat and social interaction? That works equally well as either an Inquisitor using the Cleric/Inquisitor templates or as an Inquisitor of the Cleric/Heirophant setup. A Warrior of Faith? Seen anyone from the Ordo Hereticus lately? An Inquisitor can't be a peerless loremaster? They have unrestricted access to almost any source of knowledge in Human hands, even prohibited ones. No reason they couldn't, you know, study some of those books, and one's station has no bearing on one's Intelligence, which is the other hallmark of the Sage career.

I'm not saying they can't do any of those things. I'm saying whatever they do should be a function of their bigger duty to the empire, and thus they don't have neither time nor incentive to specialize to the degree that other Careers do.

Also, when you look closely at the Inquisitor career, you'll see he can focus on any of listed paths, from lore mastery to figting skills to psychic powers to some faith-based mumbo-jumbo. And I'm willing to bet any of those Inquisitors in novels you speak of can be represented by the Inquisitor career in Ascension, just by taking some things while forfeiting the other. You said Inquisitor Career as printed is "vanilla" - I'd say it's a grab-bag encompassing all possible directions of advancement. Obviously, the Inquisitor built this way will never be as good with lore as a Sage or as good at dishing out punishment as a Death Cult Assassin or a Crusader, but he still has some unique tricks up his sleeve and the "grab bag" nature of his Career allows him to fill in for whatever function seems to be on the weak side in the team. I think it's a feature, not a bug.

"Seriously, if you think mechanics and fluff of careers are interchangeable, what's the point of having Careers at all? And more specifically, what's the point of careers having any fluff? What's the point of Sages being reputed masters of lore if I can take Desperado advances and special traits and still call myself a Sage? Why would Officio Assassins have such dark reputation if you believe their special traits and advances could represent a Storm Trooper training as well?"

That's the negative argument shovelling less than ideal but serviceable ideas into a discussion about Inquisitors to try and bolster their argument. Although interestingly one of those suggestions works quite well if you wanted to play a loremaster who aggressively seeks lore, and has less lore and more scummy skills as a result (ie; Adept+Desperado = Indiana Jones). Either way his meta-path shouldn't inherently bar him from being a member of the Administratum in character or a known Lexographer for example. And point aside, "Sage" isn't an honored title or an official rank in the setting, it has no special meaning like titles such as Inquisitor, Navigator or Vindicare Assassin does. And as for the Vindicare Assassin as Stormtrooper point, I never suggested that (but worked with it at your request) as it has nothing to do with Inquisitors, and the Vindicare career, like the Magos (and unlike the Inquisitor), represents a very specific, very rigid aspect in 40k lore, Vindicare Assassins are supercharged killing machines that are uniformally trained and subjected to invasive mental and physical alterations. They could almost come off a production line. With Magos the variations are in the small details, there are many, but they are minor. Both of these archetypes normally walk in very different circles to the Inquisition, both are represented by highly focused career paths and both are prohibited from earning a Rosette within the 40k setting. An Inquisitor with the Vindicare Assassin or Magos careers would be an impossible sell to any GM who knows the lore and aims to stay true to it, there are a multitude of combinations that would not need any changing at all to accurately represent a multitude of canon-Inquisitors.

This remains the crux of my argument: allowing any character to be called Inquisitor cheapens out unique talents and special repute other Careers should get. I believe it's the same for Hierophant-Inquisitor as it is for Vindicare-Storm Trooper. Ironically, it also cheapens out the position of the Inquisitor by implying anyone can get in regardless of either talents or interests he plans to further pursue. If the Inquisition has men ranging from living saints to guys whose sole trick is parachuting down on heretics with a blazing hellgun then I find something is amiss here.

Also, you noted yourself some Careers are and should be exempt from getting the Rosette by virtue of having a strong fluff that counters such a possibility. If it's true for some Careers but not others, then it's bad design at best, because it implies either some options aren't defined enough in the setting or the paths listed in Ascension are a random bunch of unequal options (judging from the many threads on this board the latter is true balance wise, but I'm talking about a fluff-wise disparity here). My point being, either all Careers should be viable as Inquisitors or only the Inquisitor should be, well, the Inquisitor. Since the former is already impossible fluff-wise, I prefer to assume that the latter is true and that all Careers should be presented as something as unique as Magos and VA, and equally incompatible with a Rosette.

Cheers to you, and sorry if I came out rude earlier on.

EDIT: Sorry for sloppy formatting, I'm having trouble comprehending how this board works.

If your group or members of it are getting that heated over it then they need to chill out and or grow up...its a GAME...geez...and as for the PC becoming an Inquisitor...I dont allow it simply enough....DH is based around ACOLYTES working FOR an inquisitor...not for themselves. Inquisitor = right hand of Emperor to acolytes ( and YOU as GM = Emperor )..would you cut off your right hand for someone else...lol..?

Once the inquisitor feels they are worthy he can give them the status rank of interrogator...but to gain full inquisitor status takes the support of the sponsoring inquisitor ( and they wont do it lightly since it is THEIR reputation on the line for it ) AND the local Ordos Conclave testing the inquisitor aspirant ( with at least a satisfactory outcome ) before they will officially acknowledge the PC as an inquisitor and bestow them their "holy emperor im an actual full fledged inquisitor...rosette"...lol ( the later parts both taken from my reading of a total of 42 books of WH40K ( all of dan abnetts collected works for the series and a few others ) and a general GMs idea for another adventure if they REALLY wanna be an inquisitor...since while they are acolytes they are supposed to gain contacts and potential new members for themselves for their own retinue, afterall they are not granted a retinue upon reaching inquisitor status...so they need to spend the xp on peers and contacts throughout progression in order to have the requisite base to work with to begin founding their own retinues.

Cobramax76 said:

He's talking about Throne Agents, not mear acolytes. He's also talking about Ascension and not mearly DH ;-)

I'll turn this question around about the Rosette.

If anyone can get one if judged worthy enough, why bother with Interrogator (ie: someone being groomed for the Inquisition) or Inquisitor role?

Why not just say "pick someone in your party. They get the rosette" and be done with it?

The designers put Inquisitor and Interrogator into the game as roles for a purpose.

Oh, and as far as "inquisitors are far and varied", yes, I'll agree. That's why nearly anyone (except a Techpriest) can enter into Interrogator or Inquisitor. In fact, Interrogator is suggested to diversify your experiences before moving on if you want to break out of the Inquisitor role.

I simply find it a cop out that you don't have to leave your old life behind in order to get inquisitorial power. I also look at this from a game design standpoint. The cost of a rosette is to leave behind your old life. Pure and simple. The roles are there, the ascension book makes frequent reference to it, even the *designer notes* support that viewpoint.

Again, more power to the GM if he wants to break with the rules and do it his way, but is it so much to admit that what you're doing in that case is, essentially, a houserule?

TheFlatline said:

For the same reason a Inquisitor career is there? To represent a fariyl neutral 'vanilla' baseline of a character concept?

TheFlatline said:

That's how I'd run it personally, if someone wanted to be an Inquisitor and I thought, as GM< that their master would be sufficiently impressed to grant them full status in the Holy Ordos.

TheFlatline said:

And then the Inquisitor goes and gains Skill Mastery (everything) and looks like every other Inquisitor.

TheFlatline said:

So when fluff won't support it, turn to game balance I suppose? Face it, you're part of the Inquisition proper now, regardles of your career. Either way you've left your 'old life' far behind by now, "Inquisitor" or not.

To me, defining "roles" is for something like second edition DnD (where your class HEAVILY impacted on what you could/couldn't do), not a game where the characters are more broad-reaching, like many others. I'm already cringing at the idea of someone using the terms "striker, defender, leader" for their cadre, potentially in-character too...

TheFlatline said:

When have I said otherwise? That's what Houserules are for, aren't they? To clean up or modify an area of the game that does not satisfy the members of a current group, is it not? That being said, I don't think it's a particularly great leap in this instance.

Some of you guys might not believe this, but in our last campaign, wait for it, we had a Scum character who wasn't a dirty unwashed lower-hiver! And one of our guardsman had the unfortunate penalty that if he ever left his sealed suit he'd die outright! He even specifically asked for that treatment himself! And our villain? He could kill us without referencing a rule in the corebook or any supplements! Shocking, I know!

The Hobo Hunter said:

I know I nearly died of shock, Hobo!

Anyway, the whole point of the thread was to provoke discussion on the point that the Ascention rules do not mechanically require an Inquisitor to be a memeber of the party, or for the party Inquisitor to be a member of the Inquisitor career if they have a more appropriate choice in mind for their Inquisitor PC. In this capacity it has succeeded. It's strongly implied that the designers inteded for there to be an Inquisitor in the party, but the rules were deliberately designed so that this is not mandatory (either for the leader to be an Inquisitor or for them to be a member of a specific career), as evidenced by the Influence rules which stand seperately to the Inquisitor career.

Call that a House Rule if you like, but seeing as no alterations to the rules of any kind are required for an Inquisitor to use the skillset of their choosing, I call it common sense!

Just remember that the strength of the Inquisition lies in the diversity of it's agents, no two Inquisitors are alike, and attempting to lump all of them into a single career is as silly as forcing the party leader to take a career he/she does not want to use to represent their character. The Inquisitor career is a solid, vanilla option and I never advocated discounting it, just the (in my own opinion, rediculous) assertion that all Inqusitors are the same, or at least similar enough that they must have the same career lest their Rosette magically disappear from their pocket.

I for one am glad my GM dosen't choose my career path for me, but on the plus side, one of the members of my group who is adamant on the "Inquisitors must take the Inquisitor career or they'll explode!" argument plays a Psyker, if I were forced into the Inquisitor career it would be a beautiful irony that he would be the logical choice for my first Interrogator.

"I know you were looking forward to Primaris Psyker, but I need an Interrogator I can trust , so I'm making you my Interrogator, no you don't get to argue, I'm the Inquisitor, do as you're told. Hope you enjoy the career I'm forcing you to take, sorry about all that Unnatural Willpower you'll never get. Oh well!"