So, after listening to the song Hero by Skillet, I found myself thinking about my current Dark Heresy campaign. After our first session, I''ve found that I have characters who are about doing the right thing. So I have a question.

Do you think its possible to have true heroes in the Imperium► Heroes that believe in what''s good and right and are both strong and compassionate► Heroes who never back down, rise up and stand for what''s right, even if its against Imperial decree► I''ve read many novels from the Black Library, and I''m not sure this is even possible.

Under the mechanics of Dark Heresy, it talks about how all Acolytes eventually end up corrupt and insane, but I find this sort of ending, well….suckish.

I''m the kind of guy that cheers when the good guys win, against all odds. I know I''ll get the response that, hey, this world/game just isn''t meant to be played this way, but the question remains.

What if► What if you had players that were the epitome of good► Completely incorruptible and relentlessly seek out all that is wrong with the Imperium to right the wrongs►

My intitial thought is, if the run the Warhammer world as is, and the PC''s are these shining beacons that are not afraid to even call out the Imperium on its corruption will find themselves either dead or Excommunicae Traitoris lol.

What do you guys think►

There''s always some individuals who qualify, even in 40K. They may be few and far between and it may well end up being their undoing.

In the grim darkness of the far future…

…there are such heroes, but their tales are typically tragic ones. Having said that, some of the things you mention (such as trying to reform the Imperium, or considering it corrupt) are hallmarks of the Recongregator creed. So there are such people within the Inquisition. Of course, every Inquisitor, whether Xanthite or Monodominant, considers that they are "doing the right thing." The Inquisition isn''t black and white, and it''s the shades of grey that make things interesting.

I think it''s similar to when the Tau were first released and people said that they just didn''t work within the 40k universe. Of course, they do - and it works werll to counterpoint the brightness of the Tau with the darkness of the 40k universe as a whole. If you consider it, your heroes with their lofty intentions and high ideals will have to work hard not to become jaded when confronted with the "grim darkness" that is the 40k universe. Therein lies the challenge!

There is no reason why this wouldn''t work in my opinion. The PCs would have to realise the situation and therefore work out how they reconcile their drive to be/do good with what the Imperium does on a regular basis. When they end up having to choose between what the Imperium wants them to do and what their morals tell them to do should be where it becomes interesting. Do they scream down onto a planet to save some/all of the populace before an exterminatus order is carried out that will "kill thousands but ensure a heretic doesn''t survive"►

I personally try to put questions like this in most of my campaigns to test whether the PCs want to look at this as an issue. Some groups don''t want to some do.

We all know how power corrupt, and power is in masses in the Inquisition. Plus the amount of time Inquisitors spends with forbidden books and horrific experiences.

The question that quickly springs to my mind is: Does "true heroes" exist in our world► They are very few, rare and almost never shows in the media. True heroes aren''t human, because humans makes me mistake and is filled with faults. If they exist in 40k it most be the few saints and some of the better space marines.

But for me there exist good and kind people in the 40k universe, just read the Eisenhorn and Ravenor. In those books several of the character are doing several unselfish actions, but that doesn''t make them true heroes, more like true humans.

I thank you guys for the response. The civility of this forum board is refreshing.

I think Mache might be on to something with the Tau. My current group works for Astrid Skane, as she seemed like the most "good" inquisitor. I think an interesting twist would be her working with the Tau and the PC's (hopefully) going along, both races learning from each other. The more I think it about it, it would be pretty cool, but it could blow up in my face lol.

I have a scene in my head, with the PC's leading the charge of a group of Deathwatch Marines and Tau Fire Warriors, side by side. I know Deathwatch and Tau are more likely to fight each other, but its a cool concept.

Anyway, sorry, just thinking out loud while I type.

If you guys have any further input, I'm definitely down for it.

There's some story telling potential here. What is "good"? I mean, really, what *is* "good" in a philosophic sense?

The Imperium is beset upon from all sides, from within, and from it's own dreams. It's crumbling and falling apart under it's own weight, yet to fraction into city-states would allow the enemies of Man to devour them piecemeal. The Imperium is intentionally ignorant and stagnant when it comes to technology. It encourages zealotry and sacrifice, and de-emphasises personal liberty to really disgusting limits. It seems like the very epitome of a "bad" system.

But this is a world where knowledge corrupts, where you don't know if that new idea was intuition or a demon whispering to you in your dreams.

This is a world where deep enough faith in the Emperor actually *manifests* as something tangible and recognizable in the world.

This is a world where so long as the Imperium continues, humanity will continue.

This is a world where the very survival of the species of Man is the stakes.

This is a world where the most powerful among you are one momentary lapse in control away from becoming unstoppable killing machines.

This is a world where outside the zealotry of the Ecclisiarchy are intelligent, manevolent, patient, resourceful forces waiting to snap you up.

This is a world where the powers that be have decided that the End Justifies the Means.

In this world, *what* is "good"? And what cost are you willing to pay to do what is "good"? Could you murder a hundred billion lives to save a trillion more? Is that "Good"? In this world, it's commendable. And if you choose to stay "good", what is the weight you're going to have to bear? Would you let, say, a chaos incursion rip apart the Imperium and doom man because you felt that no murder is justifiable and so you wouldn't kill that hive world?

These aren't easy questions- intentionally. Let your players decide the morality of their characters, and put that morality to the question. Give them no-win scenarios, tasks that violate their morality, consequences that eat at the backs of their minds. See how, or even if they hold up. If they still hold up under all the pressure the universe can put on them to simply survive and abandon morality, then they are "True Heroes". They'll probably go out in a blaze of glory, but heroism usually isn't something easily proved. There's a reason why the Medal of Honor is usually awarded posthumously.

In the end it's your game. Run it how you want. But don't make it easy if you want to make the PCs "good". Good can't do evil to achieve good: for good, the ends *can't* justify the means. The means have to be an end in themselves. To give them a cheat is to take away the accomplishment of being "good".

Heroes abound in the High Adventure of Brighthammer 40k!!!

Otherwise, consider the morality of the 41st Millennium. Good and Evil are concepts relative to the society, and constantly changing as time progresses. Dark Heresy already provides Acolytes with opportunities to play as heroes, in the blatant sense of what real heroism is. Most real heroes are not recognized for it, and Acolytes of the Inquisition are typically unsung in their efforts to save Humanity from more complex internal threats within the Imperium.

True heroes do exist in the grim darkness of the 41st Millennium, it just depends on your view of what defines heroism. Your players might even do heroic things that you hadn't anticipated, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'll be praised or even recognized for it.

If you paint things differently, almost anything extreme can be convincing as reasonably heroic. Take Black Crusade for example. To the Imperium of man, the heretics of chaos are essentially "evil" for the destruction they bring to the Emperor's precious existence. But to the Chaos Legions, they are heroes for their actions against the False Emperor who enslaves mankind. If you brought the same concept into a different existence, think of the Imperium like Rome, and the Chaos Legions like the barbarians. Surely among the barbarians, the one who brought the head of a Legionnaire back to camp was a hero. Whereas the Roman who burnt the barbarian villages to the ground is commended for his actions as a hero.

That's a good point Noc and I get what you're saying being a history major.

I am really debating the Tau angle, after reading their history and such. I realize they are Ulatarian (sp?) and can be conquerors just like the Imperium, but they don't have the racial hatred that the Imperium does either. I don't want to force my players to join the Tau, but I do want them to realize that there is "better" good out there. However, its only the second session tomorrow, so we'll see how things go. I'll keep you guys updated to see where they're at.

And, just so you know, this board is pretty awesome. I've gotten long, explained responses vs "Warhammer is all about killing stoofs, L2P noob!" lol

Thanks guys.

I think it's very important here to KNOW how experienced your players are with the 'fluff' of the game… the Black Library material… or if they've just picked up a game book and thought it might be a fun game to play.

My first group that I played, I had a lot of people very familiar with that fluff and had been playing with miniatures and what not for years. I played a young female Psyker naive to the universe and to the politics of things. That Psyker eventually had to go though a mind cleanse… not necessarily for anything she did wrong, but in part because the group she was with was too narrow minded and wanted to 'burn the witch' as often as they could get away with it (obviously they've never seen Firefly, but I digress). She was a little radical and came back very puritan. I eventually left that group for a number of reasons… too many to go into here, but that was a group who went the route of 'what can we destroy today Brain?"

I ran some groups later. One came from playing D&D, and were used to running heroes, then came into the 40k universe and tried do the same thing. For the most part they succeeded, although a few of them are sliding towards radicalism.

I think it just depends on your players and what they're comfortable with. But I think you should run it like a Vampire (think the humanity rules, if you haven't played that, sorry the reference won't help here) game in some regard… if you're not throwing challenges of morality at them (some of which was mentioned in other posts, so I won't repeat them here), then I think you'd be doing it wrong.

The main thing, just have fun.

Renvale said:

You do realize the Tau not all good and pure? The Greater Good is literally the tyranny of the majority.

I get all that you guys have said, and I wholly and utterly appreciate the responses on this board, very awesome.

My second session went really well, with the PC's finding STC technology that would allow a spaceship to go FTL without using the warp.

My PC's decided that not burning out psykers or sacrificing a thousand a day for the Astrinomicon was a good thing. They have a psyker in the group, and although they give him a lot crap, he's considered just as much a part of the group as any other member.

One of the PC's even (almost) sacrificed himself to get rid of some very nasty bombs that were about to go off. He earned a Fate point for that.

Sorry, not trying to give a play by play of my game, but what I am finding is that my group generally believes in doing the right thing, and its pretty cool.

On another note, I've been reading the rules on Corruption and, personally, I don't think a PC should go evil based on failed WP rolls, that just seems unfair to me. Yes he could spend XP and such to get rid of it, but it just seems like the Corruption system is there solely to make the PC's feel like its only a matter of time before they go evil or end up dead. The whole system reminds of the Call of Cthulu really, with the end being just around the corner. Dying in battle is one thing, but going evil cause you roll like crap is another.

Idk, I might be crazy, but I think a player should go evil based on his actions, not because he witnessed a daemon trying to kill him.

Since your game sounds fairly different, you could use a variant house rule for corruption.

Violence causes corruption
Yes, I know, it seems radical for a setting that sells itself as having "only war" but in your case it might just be fitting for your group.

Any unnecessary cruelty, murdering innocents, or killing any sentient being bestows 1 point of corruption on the PC. Combat will be less frequent, fought only in the most desperate circumstances. The campaign would then be centered around making important discoveries, accomplishing certain tasks, and role-playing. The PCs could also figure out how to defeat their foes without actually fighting them. In behind-the-scene fluff terms, it could be that the Ruinous Powers came into being because of violence.

If that's too extreme for you, it could be limited to tracking moral alignment. Rather than violence as a whole, anything that is evil as we understand it in our modern society could be the source of corruption. Human moral standards will inevitably change as time goes on, eventually leading to the 41st millennium, where the forces of chaos have been cultivated by so many evil actions that the warp itself corrupts people physically when they do something evil.