My issue was never really about a player killing another players character. As has been pointed out, you really don't need the Perils of the Warp to make an excuse to do that. Allthough it certainly helps

Personally, I feel that is it the duty of players and GM alike to help shape the story and the personalities of the PCs in such a way as to minimize such inter-party conflict. Tension is good, it adds to the roleplaying scene. And in some cases killing a fellow PC can be the right thing to do. Even fun for all parts involved.

But that is another discussion.

My issue was always with those who somehow think they have some natural authority over the psycher in the group, and who used blatantly meta-game information and out-of-character knowledge to justify actions that were totally out of place. In my not so humble opinion.

This is not the Imperial Guard! The Guard is a blunt instrument, and they can ill afford to issue complex instructions to their grunts. No Guardsman is ever going to make a competent and informed decision on the state of a psycher, so better to err on the side of caution. The guard has numbers on their side anyway, and can always requisition new psychers.

The Inquisition, on the other hand, is the scalpel, and it's servants are expected to show more skill, intelligence and sound judgment than those of the guard. The Guards standing order to terminate psychers "acting odd" does not apply, and their own Inquisitors will is paramount. While the acolytes might not like it, and may prefer the less dangerous route of avoiding or eliminating a psycher, who are they to question the decisions of their Inquisitor?

He recruited the psycher, he tasked him to the mission. He knows the risks, the dangers and fallout, yet he made that choice. The other poor sods in the unit will just have to put on a stiff upper lip and deal with it. Part of the job description, really.

Darth Smeg said:

I agree with this part, just so we're clear. Using out of character knowledge and defaulting to executions at the slightest temperature drop is bad.

aethel said:

2 things -

1) There is lightyears of difference between using "but my character would do it!" as an excuse for being a jerk; and staying in character in a difficult situation even if it results in party conflict and/or negative consequences for the character. Some of the coolest roleplaying I've ever seen has been driven by inter-party conflict.

Hell one of the best campaigns I have ever run (which lasted for several years) started with 4 PC deaths at the hands of other PC's in the first two sessions. No one got pissed or quit, they all enjoyed playing their characters to the hilt even when it took them to and early trip to Boot Hill.

Also, the psyker who was executed by his party members in my brothers campaign is now a character that the player likes even better in the aftermath.

2) Some truely great movies, books, TV shows, etc. are driven by the main characters having conflicts. In any ongoing series the biggest deal episodes are one's where a main character dies, and if that character was killed by another main character it makes it that much bigger a deal.

Graspar said:

Well, do bear in mind there is a reason I mentally insert 'you wish' after a lot of comments.

Graspar said:

I with you 100% on this point. If you are ever going to take drastic action against other characters (PC's or NPC's) it should only be for in-game reasons.

Use of meta-game info and out-of-character knowledge to off some one is just foul as declaring you're going to murder someone's character because the player ate the last cookie.

My character have executed other characters, and been executed by other characters.

First game, in the example scenerio, one of our characters got a mutation, and it was my character that pulled the trigger. The other character was quite distraught that he got that mutation, and simply put, IC there was no reason to let him stay alive, we both agreed with it. OOC we may not have liked the outcome, but IC my character never even gave it another thought, and honestly IC, the mutant knew when everyone else heading out of the last cave except for me and him, what was going to happen, and he was resigned to it.

My character was also semi-famous for sleeping with a heretic, admittedly unknowingly at the time. By default he was turned into our Inquisitor when it was discovered, and promptly executed. OOC I liked that **** character, but IC we all knew what we had to do.

Pyskers though, we give a bit of room too. As long as they don't call up a daemon or become daemon spawn or get a mutation, we generally give them some room. We don't trust them (and my last character, Xathess, was a psyker), but for common perils we just shrug. The way we get around it IC was that the Psyker actually has done something none of the rest of us has, actually been in the presence of the Emporer, and if the Emporer didn't strike him down then, there must be a reason he let the Psyker live. Blind Faith works wonders.

That said, there is a line we don't let our psykers cross, they cross it, and they become bolt-shell fodder.

In our group there are two things in play.

IC and OOC don't mix. What happens at the table in game doesn't effect us OOC. Characters have slept with Characters whose players are dating other people at the table. Maybe its because we've played Houses of the Blooded, but we don't carry our IC things OOC. If I kill a player IC, and have a reason for it, then OOC there are no hard feelings (and hell in Houses of the Blooded you don't NEED a reason to kill another player). However we admit that not all gaming groups are this.. for lack of a better word... mature... in their gaming. Some people hold grudges OOC when their character gets blown away IC by another character, no matter how justified the killing is. Call it what you will, and their are a myriad of reasons.

The second is the Perils of the Warp mechanics. No other character in 40k has such a restraining mechanic as the Perils mechanic is, but then conversly no other character is as potentially powerful and game breaking as a Psyker. If you want to sling spells without reprocussions D&D style, that's up to your GM, and your GM has every right to minimize or simply remove the Perils mechanic. On the other hand, because of how potentially poweful Pyskers are, for balance reasons, perils are almost necessary. It minimizes the use of psychic powers, and there always... ALWAYS... is that question in the back of your head as you roll the dice "is this the time when I blow up" and "is the outcome worth the risks or is there another, less dangerous way to do this."

DocIII - to each their own babe. I like inter-party tensions too, but obviously not to the degree you do. Nothing wrong with your philosophies, I just don't share them (on this point).

But on the "Using out of character knowledge and defaulting to executions at the slightest temperature drop is bad" point, we all agree! :-)

I've found letting fate points apply to the Phenomena and Perils was the only fix we needed (including burning a point to avert entirely). There's still enough risk to make Psykers something you want to think long and hard about, but not so much that a single roll ends in TPK .

As for executions and all that, the only reason I can see an acolyte feeling justified in killing a psyker (crazy or puritan minded folks aside, you never know with those redemptionists), is when they present a clear danger, or doing so would avert a major threat to the mission. In addition, most of the time the party will have no idea where the powers came from. An example from my first session:

The party goes to meet their contact to get the ball rolling. Upon entering her hab, the psyker is paranoid and decides to "sense presence" (even though, as it's a Hive Hab, there will be tons of those). Though she can't fail, even on a one, she still rolls a 9 right off the bat. Opting to save her fate point unless the roll goes way crazy (we allow rerolls on the phenomena chart, as I said), I roll to see what happens...

Just as they walk in, all the plants in the room and outside wither, die, and turn to ash in moments. The Redemptionist (yes, a redemptionist cleric and a void born psyker with "living nightmare" in the same group, this'll be fun) flips out and puts his gun to the contacts head ("Filthy mutant! What have you done to us?!"). The Adept in the group, being a friend of the contact, pulls his gun and tries to call off the Cleric. Their assassin just looks at the mess in wonder and distress, as she already doesn't trust the crazy man or the contact. The psyker, devious thing that she is, takes control of the situation and announces "There's a rogue psyker nearby, I can sense it!" (rolls a 02 on deceive). Needless to say, not how I thought things would get going.

The party immediately goes into defensive mode, the priest roughly hands the contact over to the adept, and runs off with the other two to pursue the "rogue". Thinking fast, the psyker then uses "Touch of Madness" to convince some poor random schmuck two levels up that he's just awakened as a psyker and is destined for the Black Ships (with the side effect of also making him twitchy and paranoid). The screaming, moaning and crying draws the party closer. Listening at the door, the priest hears the man bemoaning his fate, which is more than enough evidence for him to condemn the poor guy.

Kicking in the door, as the cleric was expecting no real resistance, touches the now-crazed scapegoat off. He drew a gun and sprayed wildly (missing completely) at the door. The redemptionist took a shot, then after getting perforated by multiple rounds (the psyker's just watching the whole thing while the assassin is catching up) charged the poor guy with a chainsword. He severed the arm at the shoulder and sprayed a fountain of blood all over the priest and the room.

Keeping the act going, the psyker shakes her head, "We should have kept him alive for the ships" all the while having counted on the priest's zeal and paranoia to kill the only evidence of her "slip". They return, damaged and covered in blood, to the contact's hab. There they find a ticked off adept and no contact. The cleric freaks out, while the adept dismissively explained that he had her sent somewhere safe, that he had already gotten everything they needed to know out of her, and that they needed to get the hell out of dodge because the arbites, the local constabulary, and Emperor knows who else were all on their way due to the warp event and the bloodbath upstairs. Thankfully he also made a rather difficult drive check to get them away, and pulled his contacts to cover up their involvement.

So in this case the chart worked out great (for me anyway), and with the safety of fate points it's manageable. On some of the other points I've seen made here:

• My players frequently ask themselves if they have the authority, and if not what they can do to get around it.
• I have a tendancy to make the anti-PvP PvP characters. The guy who kills the character getting his kicks screwing over the party (there were two problem players in a large group I played with, so I started making a counterweight for their influence with the GM's blessing). Personally I boot players like that, failing that I'll take them out in game.
• If you don't like the way the rules work for what you want to do, talk to the GM about it BEFORE things go wrong. Complaining after the fact just makes everyone unhappy.
• GMs: Why would you let a player end the game on a bad roll, when you can use the roll to make their lives an entertaining hell instead? No one said the demons HAVE to kill the players, they could always do something "worse".
• Executing another player (or NPC for that matter) should never be done lightly, but should also not be prohibited. If your character is dumb enough to fly off the handle and starting shooting his own because blood is pouring from the roof of the Hive (indoor rains of blood entertain me), then why was he taken into the Inquisition?

PS: My god, Dezmond is here too? We've all just started ignoring him on the other forum I'm on... though I think they finally banned him. I think his only goal is to piss people off, as he goes so far past rational discussion it's the only conclusion that makes sense.

I don't see Perils of The Warp as something restrictive. I see it as something that makes the game mor fun. It keeps my players and myself on guard and literally ready for anything. It's like in Call of Cthulhu.

"Wait, I'm going to try and cast a spell. It might work."

"What!? Are you sure? You might go crazy and hurt/kill someone."

It's all part of the fun of the game. On the subject of killing a psyker, I make a distinction between killing a psyker and killing a sanctioned psyker. If you've killed a rogue wytch you're a hero. When you've killed a sanctioned psyker you've just destroyed a licensed and bonded tool of the Imperium. You'll likely have to explain the matter to whomever the psyker in question answered to, and that individual will likely disapprove, especially if their long term plans involved the psyker being alive. You can't put every situation in a vacuum, especially in the Imperium. Half of Imperial law and creed contradicts the other half. It's a massive byzantine system with loopholes and auxiliary sub-clauses. Don't be afraid to have the Arbitrators or Adminustratum open the big book of Imperial Law, run their finger down the page, cluck their tongues, and announce "Yes, you were within you rights to slay him. However, you shot him in the chest and no the back of the head, thus granting a dangerous psyker a few extra second before brain death. Can you image how much damage an out of control psyker can unleash in a few seconds? You endangered public safety, and for that reason you shall serve two tours with the penal legions."

Necrozius said:

Why so?

Turn the tables on the squeemish ignorants holding you back! Tell them you will take a dim view of their interfering with you as you carry out the will of your Inquisitor and the Emperor of Mankind. Have them explain to their Inquisitor why they decided to restrict you in your abilities, when said abilities are clearly the reason why said Inquisitor recruited you in the first place.

They don't have to like it. They just have to deal with it. **** happens. It just happens more often with psychers around

Sanctioned Psykers are a valuable resource.

The problems that can arise from the use of psyker powers is well known to the inquisition. In our game as part of the players indoctrination into the Inquisition the basic tenents of the perils and phenomenon tables are explained to them. This solves a LOT of problems and is very useful information for the acoyltes to have even if there is no psyker in the team (hey why is it suddenly cold, we don't have a psyker with us?).

After that if the players paste the psyker because of of a phenominon and even most of the perils of the warp, they can expect the Inquisitor to be VERY pissed at them (possibly fataly so).

You know, at the expense of possibly seeming to say that killing pskers at random is appropriate, I must say, that the Uplifting Primer does say that it is perfectly acceptable.

It is in everyone's best interest to watch these men! If they begin to behave strangely (outside of their usual strange habits) or you see them without a full guard compliment it is your duty to shoot them down, as it is likely they have succumbed to dark powers.

So, unless the Inquisitor explicitly states that he wants the Psyker allive at the end of a mission if at all possible, a Guardsman, or any other Acolyte, is perfectly within his rights to kill them.

Of course, this should entail afterwards mounds of paperwork for the character that did teh shooting to take care of, as well as a psychic action that has a discernable physical action an outsider could note, as well as a Perils test that brings about the death of another Acolyte, the summoning of lesser daemons, or daemon-hosting.

Geredis said:

Too bad that in Dark Heresy the characters work for the Inquisition and not the Imperial Guard, then. Or are you suggesting that they use the same methods regarding psykers? A field army and a (mostly) undercover spy/secret police force?

I am, in fact, suggesting just that.

There is no evidence to suggest at all that the Inquisitorial forces seconded to them are given new field manuals or seperate rules,especially regarding something as (potentially) dangerous as a "loose" psyker. Never mind that 2.4.ii doesn't seem to differentiate between the types of psykers through duties or departments.

They kill the psyker and in turn are either sent to a penal legion or summary execution.

Any acolyte that does not realize that they now work solely for the inquisition is in for a VERY short career. Any other duties they may still perform (as an arbites or whatever else) is nothing but a cover story.

Remember that the imperium of man is a feudal society, divided loyalties are not allowed by anyone, especially the inquisition. The moment a acolyte were to say. Well as a commisar, or as an Imperial Guardsmen, or as Arbite, etc (except for a cover story) . They are declaring their allegiance to said organization or duties. The Inquisitor may feel a bit betrayed by this with the predictable results.

Inquisitor.. Soo... you felt is was your duty as an imperial guardsmen to execute the psyker because he started screaming in pain (peril of the warp 01-05)?

Acolyte.. Yes sir, obviously odd behavior!

Inquisitor.. I see.. and why would you execute the psyker for odd behavior?

Acolyte.. Clearly stated in the Imperial Infantryman's Uplifting Primer sir.

Inquisitor.. So what you are saying is that you are a guardsmen and not a acolyte of the inquisition... Just out of curiosity exactly where do you get the authority to overrule my decision to take you out of the guard and make you a part of the inquisition?

Acolyte.. Umm well sorry sir I did not realize it was like that.

Inquisitor.. No worries trooper you loyalty to the Imperial Guard is to be commended. However there is a problem. I am now faced with an unfortunate situation where a member of the inquisition, my acolyte to be precise, was killed by a member of the Imperial Guard.

Guardsmen (formerly Acolyte).. (Starting to sweat alot) Umm sir I...

Inquisitor.. I am sure you can see my position here. I simply cannot allow anyone to interfere with the inquisition, not even the Imperial Guard. (pulls out bolt pistol)

BAMB!!

So goes the story of the acolyte who thought he was an imperial guardsmen.

Nicely put llsoth.

But then again, the argument that the inquisitor fielded the psyker knowing full well what he was and so forth also goes for guardsmen. The inquisitor got himself a guardsman, probably expecting him to behave... like a guardsman.

See what I mean? If the psyker can't be faulted for doing psyker stuff, surely the guardsman should be granted the same leeway until explicit counterorders or re-education has be issued.

All those small conversation scenes are very nice and all and I'm sure you are all correct in stating that an inquisitor would not be persuaded by the uplifting primer. But this doesn't mean the inquisitor must default to protecting the psyker, the rules in the primer are there for a reason! Psykers are DANGEROUS, better to loose a valuable asset than an entire planet.

Or are the rest of you running some kind of starfleet inquisition where they would sacrifice the ship for one redshirt in danger? The point i've been trying to make is that psykers can be really really dangerous. What do you think is most likely, that the inquisitor executes someone for erring on the side of caution or rectifies the lack of knowledge with perhaps forbidden lore (psykers)?

I think there are a lot of assumptions being made regarding other people's positions, especially in that I see a lot of folks agreeing the the same points when they get made, then saying something that sounds different. Of these points, who disagrees and why:

• Everyone knows psykers are both strange and dangerous
• Psykers are valuable resources to the Imperium
• Inquisitors will be very unhappy with acolytes who kill a psyker when there was no danger, but simply wierdness
• Inquisitors will be understanding if an acolyte kills a psyker because they believe it was neccessary to prevent a disaster of some sort
• There has to be a visible causal relationship for characters to know "the psyker did it", barring a good amount of F.Lore(Psyker)
• Characters using panic as an excuse to engage in PvP is unacceptable
• Characters killing another PC because they have very good in-game reasons to is acceptable.

I know some will disagree with a number of these points, but I'm seeing some people argue over unrelated points (You shouldn't kill a psyker for leaving a chill, vs. you should kill a psyker for summoning a daemon... this is not a valid arguement). Hopefully this will provide at least a baseline for us to work with.

Rolling a peril of the warp is nothing like behavior it is a game mechanic. Also the inquisitor would absolutely expect the guardsmen to start acting like an acolyte instead of a guardsmen. Same goes for all character classes or origins. For instance he would be expected to disobey or even kill a commissar if needed to complete his mission for the inquisitor.

In short the inquisitor would not want a team with a gurdsmen, a psyker, a scum, and arbite. He would want a team of 4 acolytes that happened to have the skills of a guardsmen, a psyker, a scum, and arbite.

This has nothing to due with protecting the psyker(the example of the psyker is used because that is what the thread is about). Lets take another example. There is a team that has a scum and an arbites. They get on location and the scum goes about trying to worm his way into the local underworld and in the process commits crimes. If the arbites were to drag him off to jail or even curtail his activities in the name of the law or arbites the inquisitor may get just as upset. The arbite was more concerned with being a arbite than being an acolyte.

Yes psykers can be very dangerous but the inquisitor will expect the acolytes to judge the situation according to the needs of the inquisition and act accordingly. Lets try a different take on my previous dialogue example.

Inquisitor.. Soo... you felt is was your duty as an imperial guardsmen to execute the psyker because he started screaming in pain (peril of the warp 01-05)?

Acolyte.. Yes sir, well when he started screaming his head off he alerted our target, to maintain my cover as a guardsmen I had to execute him. Any true guardsmen would have follwed the instructions in the Imperial Infantrymans Uplifting Primer.

Inquisitor.. I see... well no help for it I guess, I hate to loose such an asset but the mission had to come first.

A very different conversation.

llsoth said:

A very different conversation, and equally valid, for a different situation. In the initial example I'd have the Inquisitor pop the guardsman, in yours I'd agree that the Inquisitor would be disappointed that a more clever solution was not found, but understanding that the acolyte's options were limited.

Edit: Wait, that was you both times making the same point different ways. The point is I agree on both counts.

llsoth said:

Arbites have entire divisions of undercover operatives so I doubt that would really surprise them. But that's not really the point.

I imagine any acolyte would be expected to put their collegues out of their missey should they be possessed. Psykers are just more likely to be to be the target (or indeed cause it). Not bringing forth a wave chaos chaotic destruction is what fate points are made for.

I agree with all your points Aureus, and agree that there has been alot of arguments in this thread where posters appear to disagree, but over completely seperate issues. Good point.

And I think I agree with pretty much everything Ilsoth said

Though the title of the thread is about Psychers, the arguments put forth about authority holds true for all classes. Unless and until stated otherwise by the Inquisitor or by agreement in the group, all are equal in the group. They may command different authority to outsiders (an Arbiter clearly outranking a Scum), but internally they are all above all secular rank, and of equal status.

On a side point, the books adress the role of a Prime, and suggests that many groups decide on their own who us to be Prime. If the group decides to make one of their members Prime, then they give him authority over the rest. Just how much authority is up to each group to decide, apparently.

Gunning down Psykers for acting strange is another one of those idiotic bits of fluff that exists solely to make 40k more TOTALLY MEGA X-TREEEEM BADDICAL HARDCORE TO THE MAX DRAGONFORCE that's best ignored.

One thing that should be remembered is that the average Acolyte is expected (by merit of the fact that they've been recruited as an Acolyte) to possess much more common sense and discretion than the average Imperial Citizen. An Acolyte Guardsman or Arbitrator may not be able to rise up the ranks very far, simply because their mindset is a questioning, independant one - assets rarely useful in most organisations, but of considerable value to the Inquisition.

Even an Acolyte Guardsman isn't a "dumb grunt". Acolytes shouldn't be expected to blindly follow orders or accept propaganda without question... and this includes many sections of the Primer.

(As an aside, I found that the quickest way to rid a Guardsman character of the notion that he's still an Imperial Guardsman was to tell him that if he's following the rules in the Primer, then the rules in the Munitorum Manual are just as valid... and then remind him that, since he managed to jam his Longlas in the first session, he's still due to be flogged for poor care and misuse of Munitorum equipment)

Acolytes aren't most people. The normal rules don't apply to them. The law does, but only to the extent that their Inquisitor gives them the authority to ignore certain laws for the sake of their investigations... but the conventions of society do not apply to an Acolyte; their duties require that they step above and beyond those things. But at the same time, this freedom gives them enough rope to hang themselves by - Acolyte cells as a whole are expendable, just like virtually everyone else in the Imperium. If they screw up really badly and demonstrate that their Inquisitor can't trust them... then they start getting the suicide missions where they're used as bait for the large interplanetary daemon-cult...

Guardsmen are instructed to execute Psykers in certain situations... but actual encounters between Guardsmen and Savants Militant are rare, because battlefield Psykers generally work with the command staff, not the rank-and-file (at which point, it's normally the assigned Commissar's job to deal with unusual circumstances regarding the Psyker).

Within my group, the Psyker is actually the cell's second-in-command (the group's Arbitrator is Prime Acolyte), and largely trusted by the rest of the group (the Cleric has issues with the Tech Priest and Skitarius, but the fact that the Psyker is sanctioned and has thus been to Terra to be judged pure by the Emperor (for all intents and purposes) is enough for everyone, even the Sister Militant... so long as the Psyker remembers to exercise restraint when it comes to using his powers. Fortunately, he does, and is thus a highly valued member of the group (especially as he's gone the scholar route, and thus spends much of his time during investigations engaging in research, to the benefit of the group as a whole)