There is the ongoing sense that any form of divergence from normality is in itself a form of heresy, and yet the Emperor's own Inquisition must seek out the paths of the heretical in order to destroy that same heresy. Therefore, while no Inquisitor needs indulge the whims of Chaos or treason, the difference between Radicalism and Puritanism is one of which excesses are permitted, such as mass execution versus incognito infiltration.

Are these terms defined well enough, even to bring up to debate?

They have been in some contexts, but not in others. Any who wish to associate with a given power will call itself by that power's name, and dub anything that interferes with what they do contrary to the name of their own power in order to wield that power against the interference. Thus, the names are defined, but are also abused and in abuse, are distorted in meaning into the null of meaninglessness.

Does each Ordos of the Inquisition require one ideal of the other?

No. Indeed, there are two weapons of the Inquisition - faith and willingness, and they are strongest when taken together rather than seperately.

What are your feelings towards Radicalism opposed to Puritanism?

Puritanism represents the current, accepted canonical beliefs and practices of the Ministorum. Radicalism is a means of pushing the boundaries of those beliefs, by examining, exploring and expanding upon their meaning. Both paths hold their own dangers. Puritanism maintains the ecclesiastical status quo, but invites stagnation of thought. Radicalism offers expansion and new thinking, but risks shifting the teachings and beliefs of the Ministorum too far from their intended centre.

Are these terms well defined enough to even bring up debate?

The definitions are relatively straightforward - one stays within Ministorum canon, the other goes beyond it. However, the beliefs and practices associated with each can change according to the accepted beliefs and practices of the Ministorum at any given time. The debate, I suspect, should be more concerned with how far a loyal servant of the Emperor's Light should be allowed to go in order to redefine the ecclesiastical norm, before being considered truly heretical.

Does each Ordos of the Inquisition require one ideal over the other?

The Ordo Hereticus, by its very nature, must cleave to the Puritanical in order to maintain a balanced approach to Inquisitorial justice. Ordos Xenos and Malleus deal with highly unorthodox enemies and situations, and as such, stepping outside of the tenets of established faith, while dangerous, will sometimes be required in order to better oppose those enemies and situations.

Senior Cardinal Ignato said:

The first two questions work hand in hand with each other. No, they are not defined well enough to bring up in debate, since the Imperial Creed isn't defined well enough to define it. The basics are there, do not consort with the Unclean, the mutant, the heretic, and the alien. But there is a huge grey area involved with that definition.

Lets take the Sanctioned Psyker for example. If we were to believe the Creed, the Psykers are evil and should be destroyed, and yet they've done something almost all of us have never done, come face to face with the Emperor himself, and the Emperor chose to let them live. Are we so vain to presume that we can choose better then the Emperor himself in who lives and who dies? And yet his word is clear, the Psyker must die.

It becomes even more unclear when we come to the mutant. The Navigators are clearly mutants, and yet why do we not only choose to let them live, but deal with them, and even rely upon them. The same query can be proclaimed with the Abhuman, are they mutants or evolved humans? Are they neither?

Stories of church brothers attacking Sanctioned Psykers and Abhumans are not rare, and I'm not sure if I can say they are wrong in their endevours. They are interpreting the Creed a lot more strictly then many others, but since the Creed encourages such interpretations they are not only allowed, but encouraged to do so.

Is the Sanctioned Psyker Inquisitor who other then using her formidable powers would be concidered an arch-puritan by any definition a Radical because she uses her powers that are clearly concidered heretical according to the Creed?

Is the Mallus Inquisitor who while fighting a spawn of the Enemy looses his blade, falls to the ground, reachs out and grabs a fallen blade of his Enemies and simply uses it to allow the spawn to fall upon in, before never ever using it again a Radical for using the items of the Enemy and tainted?

Is the Inquisitor who reads a Xenos logi-slate to discover the location of a Xenos fleet a radical because she used the tools of the Xenos to destroy them?

Sometimes its easier to figure the extremes of Radicalism and Puritanism, then it is the shades of grey. How far must you slip until you're concidered a Radical, and how pure must you remain to be a Puritan can be difficult to describe.

As to the Holy Ordos, as said by others, Xenos and Malleus are more likely to fall to Radicalism then the others, simply because of the enemies they deal with. They MUST deal with unholy knowledges at times to destroy their unholy enemies, and such knowledge is of course proscibed by any and all courts. However without said knowledge, whether from written sources or simply experience, they can not do their job.

The other Ordos, being more watchdogs of the Emperor's Imperium, do not need as much information because their enemies are either human, or once were human and as such, can resist the temptation much more.

oh wait was I supposed to be in character? in that case PURITANS SUCK Y'ALL CAN KISS MY BUTT *puts on shades, rides into sunset.*

As an addendum to my prior words, let me say this - faith is a delicate thing in a hardened shell, like an oyster. And the best thing to do with that oyster is to insert a grain of harsh reality.

+++++Puritanism means holding a book and a flamethrower while standing on top of a mountain of dead soldiers.+++++

And radicalism means holding a heretical tome and a demon sword and while standing on top of a mountain of dead soldiers.

And having kick ass horns.

Dezmond said:

LOL. Awesome!

I don't believe there can be any such thing as puritanism- the Imperial Creed, like most religions contains passages along the lines of 'all x are y, except this one' (in christianity, 'all of the fruits of the earth are yours to enjoy, except this one, for this is the tree of knowledge' or similar; in the Imperial Creed, 'All psykers are anathema and unclean mutants who must be purged, except those which are both strong enough and can be controlled by the state', 'All mutants must be burned, except navigators and those it would be useful to exploit, like ogryns and ratlings'), and so anyone who follows any one piece of dogma to it's logical conclusion, without following it ad absurdem, will be contradicting another part of the creed, and hence be a radical.

The Monodominants, for example, believe in the purity of the human race, and believe that all that can corrupt this must be destroyed- so far al fine and dandy in the eyes of the Creed, except that psykers corrupt this, even when sanctioned, as they represent a 'debasement from the human ideal'. So logically, they must be purged, and to do otherwise is to uphold and succour a threat to human purity (radicalism), except that sanctioned psykers are protected by Imperial law (save when their weakness threatens to bring about arcane nastiness, etc) as they are Imperial property. Hence any who purge them are radicals also.

The only Inquisitorial faction which does not (to my knowledge) fall into this, or similar Catch-22 situations, are the Amalathians, who do not even want to be referred to as a faction (as part of their original manifesto was to attempt to fight factionalism), and even with them, there are those who call them radicals, for wanting to work with the local and Imperial organs instead of above or through them.

Thought for the day: There is no Innocence, Only Degrees of Guilt

I can only wonder on how the Imperial Creed differentiates between those mutants and witches unholy enough to be clensed, and those that are simply lowly enough to be used as slavery? At what level of slavery might a puritan feel that a psyker is low enough. I understand that most sanctioned psykers are already considered slaves, yet they are not treated particurly cruely. Additionally, many mutants are free to work on corporate planets in a series of shanty towns.

If both of these groups instead were under a traditional "whips and chains" level of control, might a puritan reconsider?

In a way, I feel puritans are more likely to keep an individual alive to inflict as much pain as possible out of pure hate.

Senior Cardinal Ignato said:

Inquistor Heinrich Kramerius to Cardinal Ignato sends greetings. As an Amicus Tribunalis I submit the following for your worthy consideration:

What we battle first and foremost is the taint of Chaos. Chaos is the motivating force behind the misdeeds of heretics and the criminal violence of the xenos. Chaos is the Archenemy of Mankind, may the Emperor watch over us. To strive against this taint and defeat it at every turn is our sworn duty.

How does the taint spread? Gentlemen, it spreads through contact. It spreads by reaching a certain state of potency and then transferring itself through the connective tissues of the Empire, which is to say the souls of men, repurposing all it touches to become both its food supply and its vehicle. Everyone knows this.

Thus, the Inquisitor stands to Chaos as does a Doctor of Medicae to cancer: he cannot cure it except to eliminate it. Chaos must be destroyed utterly and absolutely wherever it is found. But while the Inquisitor is like a doctor, he is also, in virtue of being a member of the Imperium, may the Emperor watch over it, like a cell within the plagued body. And he is a highly mobile and important cell at that. Thus it is doubly important that an Inquisitor not become infected by Chaos. We need look no further than the case of the heretic Quixos to see what terrible disasters can befall us if this is allowed.

A Doctor does not infect himself with a disease in order to cure it. He does not ingest a cancer in order to fight cancer. An immune cell within a body does not become cancerous to overcome the body's cancer. No... the only hope of defeating cancer is to excise and annihilate it utterly and completely.

Now, some would say that Puritans are counter-productive, as if we call Exterminatus upon any world that has a single Chaos cult. That is of course a complete fabrication. Only when an entire world is past hope, or if the very survival of the Imperium is at stake, is an Exterminatus called down. If that were not so, the Inquisition would be merely a branch of the Imperial Navy.

Sadly, among the many plagues inflicted by Chaos upon those in its grasp, the first plague is upon sight. When a man, even an Inquisitor, falls to Chaos, he first loses his ability to see things in the proper perspective. Slowly and subtly his deeds will be perverted, and he will think himself faithful even to the Emperor, only to discover his own treason when it is too late. Chaos is so formidable a foe because it does not begin by corrupting the will... the corruption of the will is its final act. It starts by blinding and confusing those it drags down.

That is why we must safeguard against it always. "Puritanism" is merely the word for the path that remains free of the taint of Chaos. "Radicalism" refers to the path that becomes contaminated by Chaos in a misguided and foolish attempt to combat Chaos. But you cannot fight Chaos with Chaos... you must fight it with Purity and that alone.

And thus to answer the questions of the worthy Cardinal, it is manifest that Puritanism is the only path that remains free of heresy, that Puritanism and Radicalism are aptly defined, and that each Ordo of the Imperial Inquisition, may the Emperor watch over it, must employ Puritanism and only Puritanism less we allow the taint of the Archenemy to be loosed within our own walls.

As we are all no doubt devoted servants of the Emperor, I am sure that none of the respondents will object to my submitting the names of those who have argued against Puritanism and in favor of Radicalism to the proper authorities within the Ordo Hereticus.

The Emperor protects.