Hello everyone, My group are starting up a new Dark Heresy Campaign, we've completed our last campaign and now its time for new characters and story-line. Now the team (except myself) have created new characters that are differn't from there old ones or slightly simular. Now our team consists of;

Imperial Cleric, Melee/Range, Leader/Face man, Hand Cannon, Guard Shield (not sure which), and a Great Sword. So he basically covers anything that is lacking.

Feral Psyker; uses his strength and melee weapons more so than his psychic powers which he uses to crowd control (i.e spasm).

Imperial Guardsmen; Brawler of the group, usually is the 2nd guy, the guy playing him isn't very out going and follows whats the cleric says.

Now this is where your assistance is needed, My team is consisted of Leader, and two support characters. Even though Combat is the major role in the game, i still prefer to talk/mess with people and enemies. Our Cleric has only successfully talked us out of something once, he's not that great of a negotiator

example:

Cleric: Hello, Iam Brother Takl. I would like to speak with your commanding officer.

Smuggler: I don't think so bud, Ecclesiarchy or not.

Cleric: Please let us threw I wish to speak with your commanding officer

Smuggler: I SAID NO! *draws hand-cannon* Get out of here

*Guardsmen and Psyker dispatch the Smuggler*

Now, its not that he's a bad Cleric, he just doesn't relise that he needs to use FEAR instead of kindess. So should I take up a second talker? I wouldn't make another Cleric because thats just mean. But a Scum would be pretty entertaining.

Most of the time if the Cleric isn't playing Brother Snuggleston, we're usually getting are own Inquisitorial sitting muscles handed to us, So would a Heavy Support service? Know that 3/4ths of the team is melee, so Heavy Support would help but will probably be very restricted in melee brawls.

I would now like to hear from you, i take any and all advice (except asking the cleric to do better; it didn't work) giving your teams synergy and compatability would also be very helpful for me. And know I've read over the guides so many times I can play anything (Except Psykers because my party thinks it to dangerous for me to be one.) Iam also kinda of a dare-devil IDFK kinda person who knows when to blow up a building that will fall on a Truck full of drugs (actually did it).

Hello!

A kind cleric is not such a bad thing indeed, but sure it won't help a lot when your team should face hard-boiled and hardened foes!

To me, the scum is a good alternative where the cleric is unable to handle a situation, because in most of the case a scum knows how to deal with hive gangers or others crooks. He can knows tricks and habits of those of his kind and can obtain some relevant informations about things than a single cleric cannot simply reach.

The arbitrator is also a good choice although his approach is more rude but, in fact, often more efficient (and brutal too, i know). The one of my group is kind too but, you know, once taking a job for her inquisitor she's only kind when others do as she wants them to act so (except for the cleric, because she's very respectful with the members of Ecclesiarchy). In case of disobedience, she's a real tyrant for her team (Even at rest, she gives them orders...)

Keep in mind that your imperial psyker can be useful too. Minor powers allow him to coerce others to consider the acolyte with a friendly mood...

Hope these few advices could be some help to you!

Well, I'm partial to scoundrels, so I'd go with the scum; he could be a good foil to the Cleric and step in when the priest's sensibilities get in the way.

Jack of Tears said:

An arbitrator works too, in some situations. Either way, with a 'nice' Cleric, you need someone to fill the other half of the Good Acolyte/Bad Acolyte routine... afterall, criminals and ne'erdowells aren't scared of the nice guy... they're scared of the guy who'll hang them over a balcony by their ankles to get an answer, the one who kicks over the table and growls "I won't ask twice".

You are a player and not the GM?

Brother Paulicus said:

Why?

Take the exchange you mention..

Brother Paulicus said:

Um. What did the Cleric do wrong here? This goes from a simple conversation and escaltes to a full-blown combat in a single sentence...what chance does the Cleric have when an NPC reacts by instantly drawing a pistol and the other players react by 'despatching the smuggler'?

With respect, your assertion that...

Brother Paulicus said:

...doesn't really cut it if the example you give is typical of your group's/GM's play style.

As a GM i run with the following mantra in my head... 'Real people avoid violence...NPCs should do to' ...this means that unless its a planned assault on the PCs, or they are dealing with known psychopaths etc., most NPCs will do as much as possible to avoid a fight, and most - when the bullets start flying - will spend more effort in trying to stay alive and flee the scene of the fight than actually fighting.

Perhaps if your GM had the smuggler actually engage in a conversation with the Cleric, and allowed the encounter to advance without guns being drawn, your Cleric might have a better chance of trying to 'talk people round'?

Luddite said:

I am one of the players.

What the Cleric did was instead of using his skills like interrogate and Intimidate skills to get the information or to force people to ask them instead of asking nicley, and sence the GM allows us to get a bonus to Fellowship on what we say, he doesn't try very hard to think of what he is going to say and its usually becomes one-sided commands. The fact is that if he put Fear into the smuggler that he'd have him whipped and torture for trying to stop the will of the emperor. The smuggler would have not even think of pulling his gun. Another thing he does is that he always does it alone. I know i forgot to state this before but he always enters a room alone so that he wont be scary. Now being nice has its advantages in these situations, but when you deal with criminals you are going to have to get Creative or Mean.

Our GM is a railroader, He makes it more like a video game than a Roleplay. He does allow us to Talk people into doing stuff for us helping/fighting/w/e but like a first person shooter, when you kill one of them all of them know it was you and tried to kill you ( a major flaw, but iam not one to call people on there mistakes, iam just working around them i.e the point of this post)

Brother Paulicus said:

Sounds like your GM is the problem, not the cleric. Kindness (or the appearance of kindness) is not necessarily a bad thing.

Now a truly good railroader GM is one who gets the players to follow his plan without them seeing the train or the tracks. If you're going to railroad your players, you should try to be slick enough about it that they never realise that that's what is happening. Ah, the illusion of free will...

Disragarding the um... 'dynamic' regarding your GMS style, you could just go with a Noble Born anything. and Have a pretty good basic build for a talker schmoozer, I've got a Noble Arbite whose pulling this role off fairly well. Although personnaly I'd recomend adressing some of the issues as to how your GM is running things rather then possibly alienating a player by trying to make a character that he may feel is trying to take his schitck so to speak.

Brother Paulicus said:

So then why didn't the cleric use interrogate or intimidate attemptig to instill fear instead of saying please?

Why would the smuggler be afraid of the cleric anyway? Would he surrender if the character were an arbeit? He is a smuggler after all.

Seems like a situation where both sides acted a bit goofy.

"Let me speak with your leader."

"No"

"Please?"

This isn't really an effective way to get things done. I do not, however, think the cleric should have suddenly tried to scare the smuggler into folding if it wasn't in his character to do so. Instead he should have reasoned with the man, making it very clear that not complying with his request would be very bad - there are numerous ways to put preasure on someone without threatening physical violence. (that, too, is a form of intimidation, but without the "we breacka you legs" aspect)

It seriously sounds to me like your cleric's player is not experienced or creative enough to play the role of face man. He seems to be filling his other roles, so introducing an alternative voice to the party - while stepping on his perceived toes a little - seems like the best option. When it polite society which may be cowed by merely flashing credentials, let him play the part, but have someone ready as backup for the other situations.

As to railroading ... all GMs railroad to a degree, otherwise you couldn't have prepared adventures, it is simply a matter of how good one is at doing so.

An Imperial Cleric can always point out that, even if he is asking politely to have a chat with someone, there are others who will act less polite if he were just sent off like that.

"I'm the good cop. And you would not want to meet the bad cop, trust my word on that ..."