I posted this as a reply to a thread about Mass Possession in the Rules forum, but figured it was a topic worthy of it's own thread, and that it would get more replies in the main forum. So, apologies for double-posting like this, and here we go:

I have problems with the rather common "Let's immediately execute the psycher who just invoked a Perils of the Warp" attitude.

It is based on two things: Knowledge and Authority

Lets look at knowledge first. The Psycher can manifest incredible and incomprehensible powers. He can shoot lightening from his fingers, he can run up walls, he can become supernaturally terrifying and warp reality in uncountable ways. Nobody without scholastic training in the ways of the Warp or the Psycher can even begin to pretend to understand the first thing about the ways of the Psycher. Yet, when a foul wind blows around the psycher, the guardsman who hardly knows how to read suddenly yanks out his sidearm and decides to act on this clear breach of Psychana protocol? Just how does this person decide what is and what is not intended effects of Warpcraft? "Well, I figure shaping his arms into giant sledgehammers is just fine, and the lightening-fingers thing is kinda cool. I have no idea how he manages to get the demonic-scare-the-crap-out-of-everyone look, but I'm certain it's not supposed to rain blood! *Bang*".

What IS known, is that the Psycher was thoroughly tested and examined by the Imperium's highest experts and authorities on the subject, and found safe enough for service. He is sanctioned. By the high authorities on Terra. The people who are known to know more about these unfathomable matters than anyone else in the Imperium have cleared this Psycher. And yet the Guardsman who just passed Basic Training seem to think himself fit to overrule their decision. "Well, them fellas on Terra are far away, yah? I'm sure if they were here they'd agree with me about this frost-covering-the-ground thing not being normal". I mean, the nerve this man must have to consider himself superior to the wisdom of the lords of the Inquisition. As well as his own Inquisitor, who recruited the Psycher in the first place. Does the Guardsman think to be better equipped to decide the "purity" of the Psycher than his own Inquisitor?

I can see the scene now, the Acolyte explaining his actions to his Inquisitor:

I: "You what? You shot my seer? You blew the brains out of my servant? Explain yourself!"
A: "Well, my Lord, he was outta control! The earth shook my Lord! It's not supposed to do that!"
I: "And you know about these things, do you?
A: "Well, no. Not as such, but I'm sure it wasn't meant to…"
I: "Are you saying I am incompetent, that I hire dangerous, unstable mutants? That I displayed poor judgement in recruiting him?"
A: "Of course not, my Lord. I'm sure he was fine when you and the Lords at Terra looked at him, but he turned real bad all of the sudden"
I: "And you could evaluate this based on your extensive knowledge of and experience with matters of Warpcraft granted to you from the Infantryman's Uplifting Primer?"
A: ….

To sum up: A bunch of uneducated people, who do not know the first thing about the matter at hand, decide to take it upon themselves to arbitrarily decide what is and what is not "acceptable" or "normal" warpcraft is just absurd. It is inappropriate meta-gaming to react to a perils-of-the-warp effect as different to any psychic manifestation.

Then there is the issue of authority.

To put it shortly: they don't have it. Unless the acolytes Inquisitor has stated unmistakably that he wants his group to police the Psycher, and given them authority to terminate him upon suspicion, the acolytes do not have authority over the Psycher. All they can, and should, do, is to report their suspicions to their Inquisitor or superior in the chain-of-command.

No organization can exist where any member can exercise total authority, arbitrarily, on one of his peers. An officer in the army has no authority on other officers parallel to his own rank. He ONLY has authority over those BELOW him in the chain of command. You can't fire your co-workers, only your boss can do that. Even in a flat organization with no chain of command (like a doctors office with a few doctors in partnership) one person cannot exercise authority over another; decisions and disputes are settled by agreements, negotiations or by a board of executives.

In the 41s millennium, an Inquisitor cannot execute another for heresy. He has to bring him before a trial, a tribunal of his superiors in the Inquisition. Similarly, Acolytes cannot judge or execute each other, no organization could exist where such judgements were possible.

Psychers are a valuable resource. The rules of the Imperium dictate that Psychers not be burned as witches, but turned over to the Black ships. No Imperial authority is going to take kindly to servants who squander this resource! Killing a psycher is only really permissible when and if he poses a clear and present danger to the mission or the group, and he cannot be subdued with non-lethal force.

A summary execution of an Imperially sanctioned, Inquisition-serving psycher would be a transgression of an acolytes authority, a violation of Imperial Law, and an insult to his superiors who cleared the Psycher fit for duty, including his own Inquisitor.

Such an execution then, would be murder! Murder of the servants of the Imperium, especially that of the most Holy Inquisition, is Treason. Treason is the worst form of Heresy.

In my campaign, any acolyte who took upon himself to judge and execute another of his peers, would himself be facing an execution very suddenly.

Comments welcome

Is the execution attitude really very common? In both the game where I play and the game where I GM, the approach is very much the same as yours.

Perhaps I'm jumping to conclusions here, but I've seen this in my own gaming group as well as in several discussion threads on this forum.

That does not automatically make it common, but it does suggest it is not uncommon

Anyway, I'd be intrested to see arguments for the opposing view.

Darth Smeg said:

I think you are absolutely right in your observations. The attitude you have described in your post has been oozing out of scores of posts both here and in the old forum. It is player vs. player nazism at its worst. I guess a Perils of the Warp gives a good excuse to kill the character of another player Paranoia-style. And all because of bad dice rolling. Now how lame roleplaying is that?

I think there’s an issue here of out of character knowledge guiding in character action here. If a psker uses an ‘invisible’ power (resist possession) and then it suddenly rains blood, people have no reason IC to connect the two. But if they suddenly shoot lightning from there hands and its starts to rain blood, then I think most people would guess at a connection.

Certainly if all that happens when a psker uses his powers is a bit of blood, spooky gusts of wind and the occasional disembodied voice, then I think its fair for most groups to just get a bit edgy around him. If all they get is Daemons popping out of the ether, mass possession etc, then if I were the Psker I’d expect to be ‘left at the inn’ an awful lot and maybe that walk near an airlock is a bad idea.

As for an Inquisitor punishing a group for taking matters into there own hands. If a groups smart there’s no reason for him to even care.

[weak humour]
I: So another Seer dead then, yes?
A: Indeed my lord,
I: and this time?
A: Despite our protestations, the seer tried that thing with the lightning again.
I: and he exploded like the others, yes?
A: Indeed my lord.
I: Was this before or after the mass possession this time.
[/weak humour]

An interesting point of view on the topic Darth Smeg. I can certainly see the logic of it; well argued sir.

Just a few small points remain.

How should these other PCs react if they are aware their psyker is 'casting' and incurs one of the following PotW results?

Dark Summoning

Ethereal Storm

Mass Possession

Daemonhost

?

Jan Solo said:

I whole-heartedly agree. It really does suck, but I suppose that it is the trade off for such power.

I play a psyker (Telepath), and I went through the whole: "should we kill him guys?" episode. One player took the effects from the Peril of the Warp on his character personally, so he spent two - TWO - fate points trying to kill my character.

Very awkward.

Player vs. Player interaction in an RPG can get very sour.

Executing a sanctioned psyker is akin to destroying Imperial property belonging to the PCs Inquisitor - that's not something thay have the authority to do.

Or just use a Fate Point to essentially negate the whole Peril roll..

Velvetears said:

Someone once pointed out to me that RAW you cannot do this because it isn't a skill test.

Jan Solo said:

Bad Gaming, not bad roleplaying.
I think its very in-character for 40k characters to become hostile toward psykers that have a continual streak of bad luck. Inter-character hostility and or competition can drive some fantastic story lines, but unless your players know when to 'leave it in it's box' it can also be very damaging to the player groups friendships.

That said if the perils brought about by the group Psker are constantly derailing your adventures and making thing more difficult for your players, you either need to talk to the player and work out between you what's going wrong, or maybe come up with a house rule that helps to smooth things out a bit.

One of my players once described the Perils table as a 'Nuts' table. 'You roll on the table, then the ref kicks you in the Nuts'.

Necrozius said:

Rule 1: All other rules are optional.

Necrozius said:

Yep it isnt, so you'll take your warp lumps 'n like em!

(also keeps the riff-raff in line thinking they might get away with it...)

The other thing to consider is that the perils are generally more of the embarrassing, uncomfortable and annoying types, even the Inquisition is probably going to put up with "annoying" when it comes to a sanctioned psyker. If the psyker is dropping stuff thats going to injure, kill or possess someone then people in his group probably have a right as they see it to protect themselves from serious harm, popping someone because they made the starch rations go off is going to be taken as being excessive by the boss.

Other people though, they might decide to shoot the psyker because they're ignorant peons and probably fair enough. As a member of the inquisition you're there because you can think and you do know things which the average peon doesn't, that and life is often hard without being a member down due to fire from friendlies, heck if the acolytes have enough time to shoot one of their own in a combat situation I'd probably give a sniper somewhere that extra full round of aiming in to really make the ******* pay.

Luddite said:

The only result that causes the Psyker character to actually turn on his friends is Deamonhost. All the other results are the warp intruding on the real world to attack the Team/Psyker, but not the Psyker doing harm on the rest of the team. So if Daemonhost comes up, the other PCs would be more than justified to open fire. If the other results come up, they should work as a team and help each other, not make it worse by starting a civil war between them, just because the other characters got a few corruption and/or insanity points and the Psyker got none due to high Willpower.

Jan Solo said:

Exactly. Demonhost would definately fall under the definition of Clear and Present Danger that cannot be subverted with non-violent means. Shoot to kill, with the blessings of all and any authority of the Imperium.

The other cases do not warrant killing the psycher, but I could definetely see him being the object of some form of "peer pressure" afterwards
Like the unofficial justice carried out within the military in the movie "A Few Good Men", for real-world comparisons.

It could even lead to some intersting roleplaying, where the group tells the Psycher it would be best for his continued well being if he not cause more blood to rain from the sky or demons popping in to kill them

Darth Smeg said:

That makes sense to me.

But what if the psyker character has Fate Points?

The character OBVIOUSLY needs to be retired prematurely.

But it sure must suck balls for the player who has to tear up their character sheet or folio despite how many Fate points their PC had stored up. I'd probably quit playing if that happened to me.

RichH said:

I don't really see how he could not care. It's worth remembering that psychers are a rare and valuable resource, and unlike Scum or Guardsmen, they aren't found hanging around bars waiting for a recruiting Inquisitor in need of manpower to drop by.

All sanctioned Psychers are stationed at institutions that had to requsition their services in the first place. The Imperial Guard is a good example. The service of a noble or trade house another. Or attached to an important politician. If an Inquisitor wants a psycher, he will have to commandeer him from someone important enough to have one in service in the first place, or requisition one directly from sanctioning on Terra.

This means that the psycher represents a high political value, and a lot of investment/trouble on the part of the Inqusitor to get a hold of in the first place. I'd be mad if somebody killed my psycher, thats for sure!

I appreciate the humor (quite witty, actually), but I think that the kind of Inquisitor who would not tolerate some fallout from his psychers would probably not be employing them in the first place. Having a psycher in the group then, says something about the personality of their Inquisitor. He is not going to be an Ultra-Puritan hardliner who would approve of summary psycher execution, as such a hardliner would have never hired the said psycher in the first place.

1) Psykers are NOT fantasy wizards. (Ok,ok the game system is set up the same way, mechanics/powers the same, but not what I mean) Culturally they are accepted in the Imperium as a necessary evil. Psychic power, as with anything connected to the warp, is feared and hated by the ingnorant (which is most folks). Being sanctioned is the only thing that keeps a psyker safe from mass hysteria or extreme official reaction (Black ships if they can catch you semi-peacefully, death if not). Psykers are not as accepted as wizards in fantasy. Yes they have the same power, but they are hated and feared for where such power comes from.

2) Psykers are powerful, but they are also gateways to the warp. According to Imperial dogma the warp is corrupting and the source of all that is most evil. Having people be twitchy and ready to kill you is the price of power. In other games you pay for being the spellcaster other ways (DnD for example: d4 hit dice, can't use pretty much any weapon worth a ****, etc.) Here it's with constant threat of possession, madness and death.

3) Anyone who actually served in the Imperial Guard had during his service standing orders from the Imperial Infantryman's Uplifting Primer that were if you see a psyker w/o the troop assigned to guard him, or if he is acting wierder than normal execute him immediately. Now a guardsman who has become an acolyte probably isn't under these same standing orders, but habits beat into him in basic training die hard.

4) Yes psykers are useful to the Imperium, but throughout just about everything in the setting the point is made that the usefulness of paykers just barely outweighs the danger they pose. Since Imperial response to daemon incursion is often to execute everyone who had contact w/ the daemon (other than those sent to kill it, and sometime even them), arguing that mass possesions and other warp incursions should be ignored just because the psyker didn't directly turn on the PC's doesn't fit with Imperial teachings. Better a dead psyker than a horde of possessed people or even a single daemon running around.

5) Ignorance is exactly why the guardsmen (or whoever) would kill (or take whatever other steps regarding) the psyker. They don't understand that the image of a daemon's face or the high pitched shriek shattering all glass w/in a km are just minor side effects. So they freak and shoot the scary bastard.

I'm not saying characters should shoot the psyker anytime he gets phenomena, or anything like that. Unless it's clear that psyker caused the wierdness any such hostile reaction due to phenomena or perils is meta-gaming at its worst. But when there is an in-play indication that the psyker caused something that would freak out the other characters (not just the player rolling on the table, but something the other characters can see and tell is linked to the psyker) then the character should react however that character would. If that is shoot the psyker, so be it.

Further I'm not saying this is the appropriate response for every character. Some would react that way, others would not, it depends on factors such as background, temperment, experience etc.

That also doesn't mean that their inquisitor would agree with their choice. Hey may well imprison, punish, execute the acolyte who killed the psyker, or he may decide they made the right call. It all depends in the Inquisitor, his views on psykers, and what the actual situation was.

The point of all this is that players should go with whatever action is in-character for the character they are playing, then face whatever consequences come from it.

p.s. for those playing psykers, quit your bitching, you wanted phenomenal cosmic power, be ready to take the bullet to the brain-pan that might come with it.

Jan Solo said:

No, that's not the only result that causes harm to the other players. The main argument was that the other PCs are unable to tell if the psyker is just doing his thing. But now they are competent to judge that he only hit you with that energy blast by accident. Really?

The lack of understanding is exactly why the PCs SHOULD turn on the psyker, they won't know that the warp ghosts were never really dangerous or that the holy statues crying blood is not the first step of a full blown daemonic incursion and in lacking that knowledge they must fall back on what is commonly known. Psykers are dangerous, when they act weird it's do or die.

In any case, the argument that the players don't have the authority is a bad one. Of course they don't have the authority tojudge him to prison or similar. But to stop an ongoing crime or use force in an attempt to disable a criminal? They work for the inquisition, to argue that they can't take action against a fellow acolyte doing something WRONG is like arguing a cop can't stop another cop from murder without orders from higher up. The question of wether they were actually right can and should be sorted out later.

DocIII said:

That's just the thing, though: I did not want "Phenomenal Cosmic Power". I wanted to create a subtle character who played with people's minds rather than blowing them up.

But with a bit of bad luck, I would have to tear up a character that I spent just as much time developping as anyone else in the group, despite how many Fate Points I had.

Graspar said:

There is a difference between trying to stop a peer from doing something wrong, and executing him after the fact. If the ignorant scum decides to pop the psycher because he is currently causing a catclysm, and the scum believes it to be the only right thing to do, than I have no problem with such an action.

It's the assassin observing the frost spreading on his gun, saying "Well, he has obviously turned bad. I guess its time to put him down" I take issue with. If the psycher causes demonic invasion, but then helps fight it off and willingly turns himself in to the judgement of his Inquisitor, then I still argue that nobody in his group has any authority to decide otherwise.

I can easily see vigilante justice being carried out, and the team deciding on a story where "the seer was unfortunately gunned down in the ensuing firefight". But thats different

Somehow I've ended up on both sides of the argument, uuugh....

On killing the group Psyker,
It's bad 'gamesmanship' to kill a fellow player (unless you’re playing a game that specifically sets players against each other). It may be IC but all you get then is miffed players and the group starts to break down. I've met a few players over the years who try to kill fellow party members for the reason 'It's what my character would do' most of them I could barely stand. Sometimes as a player you have to do what’s right by the game, not by the character. That's not to say that if the Psyker is being an idiot (constantly spamming powers with max dice) you shouldn't do something about it, but try talking to them ooc before you start shooting.

On Inquisitors,
Most missions happen outside of an Inquisitor’s or his Interrogator’s sight, out of sight, out of mind. A stray bullet in the heat of battle, a sabotaged pressure suit and sorted. On the official report, you can just say he was cut down by enemy Las fire.

Deamonhosting,
Psyker 101 The first minor power any psyker ‘should’ get is resist possession. Before they even think about using another one, they should have this one switched on and ready.

DocIII said:

Some good points there, Doc.

I appreciate the necessary evil part, and can easily see situations where acolytes could be justified in taking "control of the situation", either imagined (due to ignorance, hatred and fear) or real. However, I still maintain that they are not authorized to do so.

That might not stop them, and in many cases I suspect they could hide this from their Inquisitor, or convince him it was necessary.

But I would imagine that an Inquisitor who decided to hire a psycher, and who further decided to stick him in a close working relationship with primitive, superstitious guardsmen, would take the time to educate said guardsman a little. Or at the very least, to lay down some rules.

Then it is up to each group (Or GM) to decide where on the scale from "Shoot him if he looks at you funny" to "You are all expendable, except the psycher" their Inquisitor operates.

I very much doubt he would leave it up to each individual scum and guardsman to decide on their own, especially considering the widespread distrust and animosity towards psychers.

RichH said:

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. This smacks of something some of the guys I used to game with referred to as the "PC Glow", i.e. treating player characters differently just because they are player-characters. PC's and NPC's are all people within the setting and should be treated the same. To do otherwise is bad role-playing. If you would shoot an NPC's psyker for doing something, then you should be equally willing to shoot the PC psyker for doing the same thing. Now if your reason for treating them different is an in game one such as: that guy's a cultist, this guy's a fellow inquisitorial acolyte, that's fine. But if you treat a PC psyker acolyte any differently than you would treat an NPC psyker acolyte then you're destroying immersion and might as well be playing monopoly.

Now this does not excuse those players who are the type to just be an ass then justify it with "oh, it's what my character would do." That is an almost equally bad breach of RP, and leads to the corallary if the player is a jerk, don't game with him. (This does not make everyone who engages in PvP a jerk, it has to do with what you're doing and why.)

As long as all the reasons for action are in-game reasons and narratively consistent then they should be left in-game. Anyone not mature enough to handle that is a pretty poor sport to begin with. (As is the chap who goes "heh, heh, heh, I'm going to make a character that kills/can't work with/will always cause problems for the other characters.")

Darth Smeg said:

I've never known players to stop and go "do I have the authority to do this?"

Not arguing with you about authority. Whether or not they have the authority to do anything all depends on what their orders/instructions from their higher ups are.

Then again, an Imperial Cleric may well believe that as a priest of the faith he has the authority to carry out the Emperor's will as he sees fit.

An arbitrator may decide that based on the judge/jury/executioner authority of the adeptus arbites he has the authority to execute whomever he deems to have violated Imperial Law. (and could easily decide that any given even crossed the line of authorised contact w/ the warp to criminal promotion of chaos incursion/heresy)

A guardsman may well believe that his standing orders from the primer give him not only the authority but a duty, which he could himself be executed for not performing, to kill the psyker.

Since when do scum (by definition criminals) care about authority?

Now they may all be wrong. It all depends on whether their Inquisitor agrees with them as to their "authority". They'll never know for sure unless their boss makes a definitive statement.

Then again, say the group assassin (or guardsman, or anyone else for that matter) goes off the rails and starts shooting every non-acolyte in sight. By your arguments the other acolytes do not have the authority to shoot him. They likely should shoot him. They likely would get a pat on the head from the boss for taking him out before he could make more of a mess of things, but he's an acolyte they're also acolytes so by your rationale they don't have the authority to do anything about it.

Acolytes have to make judgment calls, then live with the outcome, whether its with psykers or anyone else.