I read that the Inquisiton does not really have a formal chain of command, so a couple questions came to mind: if an inquisitor is deemed too far gone from the Emperor's favour, be the cause corruption, extreme Radical connection and/or activities, or anything else, who would be sent to remove him/her? The Officio Assassinorum? The Adeptus Arbites? Another Inquisitor?

I'm sure the situation will sometimes dictate the method used, but is there someone or some organization generally tasked with a problem like this? Would it matter which Ordo the inquisitor belonged to? And what if that inquisitor was an inquisitor lord?

Any input is greatly appreciated!

In the old days, hunting rogue Inquisitors was Ordo Malious' task. However, since they were reinvisioned, I don't think there is any particular branch of the Inquisition which handles this. Hunting rogue Inquisitors is most definitely the purview of the Inquisition it's self and, from what i've gathered, it seems to be handled posy style.

When one Inquisitor doesn't much like another and what that other is doing, that Inquisitor can declare the other Excommunicate Traitoris. However, the weight of their declaration will be effected by both inquisitors standing with their peers as well as how good of a case can be put forth in support or against the accusation. In the end, it boils down to how many friends the other has watching their back. Bob the Inquisitor wouldn't get far at all if he announced that Lord Inquisitor Zerb was Excommunicate Traitoris, however, if Zerb were to announce that Inquisitor Bob were Excommunicate Traitoris, half of the Calixian Conclave will be hunting Bob down.

Once an Inquisitor declares another Excommunicate Traitoris, then all his supporters and those he's managed to convince of this will tend to form a posy, or a Cabal in inquisitorial terms, for the express purpose of hunting the renegade down. They would conceivably use any and all resources at their disposal (arbiter's used as blood hounds, temple assassins, acolytes, secret agents in the Inquisitors cells, etc), though there dose seem to be a universal understanding that such matters need to be done quietly to keep up airs that such never happens in the unified front that is the Inquisition. The renegade, however, may have supporters of his or her own which my not recognize the authority of the Inquisitor who made the accusation. The more respected the Inquisitor, the less help the rogue will be able to find.

This is just my take on it based on bits and pieces from the DH books and Inquisitor.

Edit: (oh how I wish i could read the message of the OP while writing a reply...)

To answer your two main questions -

Would an Inquisitors ordo matter? Yes, everything would matter... but not all that much, unless it does. If the accuser is from an ordo which has had a history of bad blood with the Ordo of the accused, his accusation may not be taken all that seriously without more proof then one who was of the same Ordo and a trusted colleague.

Would it make a difference if either of them is a Lord inquisitor? Heck ya. Since such titles are more or less popularity badges, the one who's more popular will tend to be believed and have more backing then those not as popular. Unless inquisitor Bob with 2 years as an inquisitor had better have a heck of a lot of other Inquisitors stepping up to support him as well as some truly compelling evidance if he decides to declaim Lord inquisitor Zerb excommunicate traitoris. On the flip side, if zerb was having a bad day, he could conceivably have a good handful of the Calixian Inquisitors hunting Bob down without even declaring him excommunicate tratoris.

Well, a few things that I remember are:

Inquisitors, if deemed heretical, have to be presented with the list of charges before being "judged". And from the literature it seems they undergo some manner of trial, be it by their peers or merely by the Inquisitor that has taken upon himself to purge the traitor. Of course, conditions that clearly indicate treason might cut these formalities short, however that seems to be the way of things.

So there does seem to be some process to it, I've been trying to dig up the references for this, but haven't been too successful. I know in the Einsenhorn novels Eisenhorn was charged, I'll have to dig through the book and find the references. But perhaps someone with better memory can detail this. Also the DH rulebooks I think mention the "be presented their charges" bit.

I'll come back once I have the references.

I remember a white dwarf story, wher the first sign a Inquisitor had, that he was judged to death, was that his identifications didn`t stop an Cullidus Assassin.

In the Eisenhorn Novels it is clear, an inquisitor could declare another Inquisitor Excommunicate Traitoris.

correction it was an Eversor Assassin

>>So there does seem to be some process to it, I've been trying to dig up the references for this, but haven't been too successful. I know in the Einsenhorn novels Eisenhorn was charged, I'll have to dig through the book and find the references. But perhaps someone with better memory can detail this. Also the DH rulebooks I think mention the "be presented their charges" bit.<<

From what I recall of Eisenhorn the stories seem to indicate that if one wants an Inquisitor declaired a heretic and officially have his Inquisitorial status removed he must be brought up on charges before a council of his peers - including at least one "lord inquisitor" to oversee the process. If found guilty he is likely turned over to the Ordo Hereticus for torture in order to determine what damage he has done to the Imperium. Afterwards, well, we have all seen the kinds of things the empire of man does to heretics.

However, if one Inquisitor comes to believe another is guilty of treason, but cannot prove it before a council ... either because the evidence is too light or the individual has too many friends - usually a bit of both - he may take it upon himself to conduct an investigation and eliminate the offender once he has determined the truth of the matter. The Inquisitor would do well to keep good records of his investigation, however, as when it comes out he has slain another member of the organization there is a risk of fallout, with retribution from the wronged individual's friends ... thus submitting your evidence after the fact seems a wise thing to do.

I've got a rogue one in my game who's on the run for refusing to submit to a High Lords writ accusing three Inquisitors of heresy, that was weilded by a very powerful member of the Sororitas and backed up by plenty of stick.

He made the mistake of running and for very good reason!

How the inquisition deals with one jumping the fence is in one word- "discretely" They really don't want it publicly known that one of their own has basically gone awol and unanswerable, it undermines every Inquisitior's authority in the sector, makes them quite (personally) embarrassed and if they don't deal with it soon, that certain Sororitas will take matters into her own hands (believing its now a conspiracy) and everything will get very, very ugly for everyone tied directly to the inquisition.

Actually 'killing' one aside from the obvious problems of them not being exactly easily killed on a good day is even more complicated. I'm sure the lowly scrub acolytes could bring him down ok under the right circumstances, probably losing a few of their own in the process. But its also a case of doing it somewhere that is equally out of the public eye and our man knows full well that his best bet is probably hiding in plain sight in a lot of cases.

This is great stuff. So if an inquisitor wishes to accuse another of treason, officially that is, he must put accusation before a council to prove he is in the right to do so. And if the council accepts the accusation as truth the parties involved in the council will hunt the offending inquisitor down, charge him, and most likely kill him, right? The proof would have to be rock solid, I would assume, to pass inspection by a council of inquisitors, and if the accusing inquisitor knows the proof he has will not convice others but he has seen first hand that the "fellow" inquisitor is indeed a heretic, would he consider using the Officio Assassinorum to "remove" the heretic, or would he use his own people, i.e. trusted acolytes or personal guard? After all, the Officio Assassinorum is subjec to scrutiny by Ordo Sicarius, and I suppose that would make it harder (but not impossible) for an inquisitor to use its services unnoticed?

xenobiotica said:

Not very likely. The judicial system (of any organisation, including the Ordos) of the Imperium of Man seems to be mostly composed of wild accusations and proof of character flaws instead of having to present cold hard evidence. So if an Inquisitor has a grudge against another Inquisitor its definetly not implausible that if the first finds some dirt on the second s/he will try to twist and turn the "truth" in order to get the other judged by that particular sectors conclave.

Remember, the mindset is very medeival, and if people in the dark ages could burn other people on a stake simply for the crime having slightly cleaner laundry, then Inquisitors could certainly bend the truth in a similar way. Remeber plattitudes such as "Trust in your suspiscion" and "Divided we stand, united we fall" etc.

In the book Ravenor Rogue when Ravenor finally allows himself to be captured by one of his fellow Inquisitors he is sent to the home of his particular group and is put on trail in order to determine if what he did was right for the Empire. So an Inquisitor can go rogue and survive it if his peers feel he did the right thing.

Lexicanum said:

Here's the problem - the notion of a formal system of trial and judgement for Inquisitors flies in the face of the fact that an Inquisitor is fundamentally unsurpassed in authority by any but the Emperor.

The Eisenhorn and Ravenor novels paint a picture of the Inquisition that differs from other sources - one that possesses an established and apparently rigid internal hierarchy, and that seems far more formal in its operations than in depictions such as the Thorian Sourcebook. Unfortunately, as Abnett's works are those most commonly read, his view of the Inquisition is the one more often referred to... which is a real shame, as his portrayal of the "Officio Inquisitorius" (a title never to my knowledge used outside of the Eisenhorn and Ravenor series') is IMO the biggest flaw of two otherwise fine series of novels.

As I see it, the matter is a lot more "show politics" and a lot less "rules and regulations". There are no rules in the Inquisition, and radicalism isn't illegal. Radicalism isn't even that strictly defined, and depending on personal opinion seems to fall anywhere between "baby-eating daemon-summoning heretics" and "mildly unorthodox" - contrary to the stereotype, radical Inquisitors do not all own daemonhosts and daemonweapons and wield sorcerous powers, just as puritan Inquisitors are not all psyker-hating zealots with a taste for scouring planets of life based on rumours of heresy.

Divergence aside, the matter is an assumed formality; the Inquisition has given itself a semblance of structure that varies from place to place, but which actually does not need to exist in the first place for the Inquisition to function. Consequently, the matter of judging an Inquisitor guilty is a similar unnecessary formality - as is only proper (those who truly need to be excommunicated from the Inquisition would invariably ignore the niceties of due process anyway).

It comes down to force - if you believe an Inquisitor is acting in a manner unbefitting an Inquisitor (remember, by them being unbound by law, the matter of declaring them a heretic becomes considerably more difficult; the church can no more easily label an Inquisitor a heretic than the Arbites can label him a criminal) - then you have to bring him to justice yourself, by whatever means are deemed necessary and appropriate. The formal structure relies upon it - a 'renegade' Inquisitor is coerced into standing before the judgement of his peers by the fact that they are more numerous and collectively more dangerous than he is alone, and should he attempt to resist, the pretence of a trial can be easily dropped and the matter be dealt with at gunpoint.

A man above the law can be convicted of no crime, and by necessity, an Inquisitor is beyond the petty restrictions of the rest of the Imperium. Those empowered to mete out justice upon so-called "renegade" Inquisitors are empowered to do so by the Inquisition itself, utilised by Inquisitors as an additional resource, another degree of available force that can be brought to bear against those believed to have crossed the line.

As for the Officio Assassinorum - they'd almost never be involved in matters like this unless it can be proven that the "renegade" in question is a significant threat to the security and productivity of the Imperium... the deployment of even a single Officio Assassinorum operative requires nothing less than a majority vote from the High Lords of Terra. The Ordo Sicarius circumvent this not by overruling the High Lords (while technically possible, it's an incredibly dangerous precedent to set, given the reasons why the Ordo Sicarius exists in the first place) but by having assassins of their own - assassins who are often deployed in situations where an Officio Assassin needs to be brought down.

Regarding the Ordo Malleus - actually, their sphere of influence does still entail the elimination of rogue Inquisitors. By their very nature, the forces of Chaos are insidious and supremely able to subvert and manipulate, and these are things that the Ordo Malleus exists to look out for and combat... as an Inquisitor corrupted by Chaos is an extremely dangerous individual indeed, the Ordo Malleus are compelled to investigate any suggestions of corruption amongst the ranks of the Inquisition...

Just to expand a bit on this after having just re-read the Eisenhorn first two novels.

There is a formal procedure for judging Inquisitors, as per Imperial and Inquisitorial law. There is also an informal process that is just as respected. But foremost, Inquisitors are independent agents, but still subject to the laws that bind them in the service of the Inquisition. They are not above the law, they are just one of the highest laws in the land. That is an Inquisitor can still be judged by another Inquisitor, making them subject to the same laws they apply to any other citizen of the Imperium (hence, making them subject to the laws, not above them).

In the Eisenhorn novels the formal process is followed, in great part, due to Eisenhorn's notoriety. You'll notice that Eisenhorn executes various heretical Inquisitors without the need of a trial. He also kills various "innocent" Inquisitors and acolytes that were chasing him after he had been declared Hereticus and Diabolicus in Extremis. Eisenhorn is never charged for any of these deaths.

You'll also be keen to remember that Osma and Tantalus (sp?) were prosecuting Eisenhorn way before any formal charge were filed against him. Betancore saves Eisenhorn from being executed by firing upon one of the witchhunters. This was painted as normal in the book and no mention was made about it being out of the norm. It's a dangerous world that Inquisitors travel, as they face enemies from within as well.

I'm pressed to remind people that Eisenhorn's trial wasn't done for his benefit. It wasn't because he was "innocent until proven guilty", but rather because the Inquisitors chasing him wanted the glory of hounding, capturing and proving his corruption to all. Osma and others were convinced of his corruption and needed no proof. They wanted to execute him but also maximize their profits from it. They were making a case for their own advancement within the ranks, not following some due-process. There are at least five instances where Inquisitors try to kill Eisenhorn without trial or due process. In fact, the only reason Fischig orchestrates Eisenhorn's escape from the Inquisitorial prison in Cadia was because his death would rob the prosecuting Inquisitors of their rightful glory.

So, in summary, the Eisenhorn novels don't just only present the picture of the more civilized judicial process, but it also presents many more instances of Judge Dredd style executions done by Inquisitors: done independently and in the field. Overall, by number of occurrences in the series, it's prevalent that Inquisitors are free to kill and dispose of any heretic in their judgment immediately, Inquisitors included.

Lexicanum said:

Actually, that doesn't make them subject to the laws... just subject to the judgement of any other Inquisitor, so long as that Inquisitor can back up his threats in some way (often by threat or use of physical force). An Inquisitor, being bound by no law, can still be executed by another Inquisitor... because no laws apply to either of them, so it becomes a matter of individual judgement. IMO, any and all notion of "due process" for 'renegade' Inquisitors is purely a veneer of civility, a pretence put in place like so many of the trappings of Inquisitorial "organisation". Just because they might go about something in a particular way does not mean that it's the law for them to... it might be traditional, it might be considered respectful towards those Inquisitors more senior and more experienced, or it might be a matter of coercion... and it's likely to be all three...

Beyond that, attempting to bind an Inquisitor to due process would be highly impractical. If Inquisitor A accuses Inquisitor B of consorting with Daemons, then Inquisitor B - who in this case actually is consorting with Daemons - will probably use those Daemons to aid his escape so that the "witless fools" attempting to have him executed can't bother his important work. He won't simply give himself up and attend a trial... so the only way to "arrest" him is to, essentially, blow his kneecaps off and drag him before his peers in chains and be judged guilty.

And, quite frankly, the summary you've presented backs me up on this to an extent - if Eisenhorn's trial is solely to glorify those who seek to defame him, and the elimination of a percieved renegade Inquisitor can be just as easily done in the field with no fuss and no mess... then the trial is not a formal structure, but rather a customary matter, an observance for its own sake.

I'll still argue that Inquisitors are bound by Imperial and Inquisitorial law, hence why their rosettes can be revoked and their credentials expire. There is both a law binding them in service to the Emperor, and an expectation of their behavior. That they are given great latitude in how they achieve their aims does not contradict this.

The rest you're right about, and I wasn't trying to say otherwise. Any formal structure is strictly a customary matter. Law systems are merely codified customary processes enforced by some higher powers (governments/military). You've basically hit on the philosophy of law systems. Most dissidents will argue the same points: laws are nothing but an arbitrarily enforced set of rules that serve those in power and their schemes. The Inquisition just does away with the pretentious façade of justice or fairness.

Lexicanum said:

Which is, essentially, why I see the Inquisition as being above and beyond all matters of law - for them, there is no higher power able to enforce laws that would bind the Inquisition. They are, barring the immobile and uncommunicative form of the Emperor Himself, the highest authority in the Imperium.

Thus, the "laws" they are bound to are only those that they agree to be bound to - because nobody has the authority to simply say "sit down, shut up and do as you're told", and for good reason.

Imperial Law - that is, the Lex Imperialis as upheld by the Adeptus Arbites - is a vast and immeasurably complex matter, with a hundred centuries worth of precedents and judgements spanning untold millions of worlds, and enforced by an organisation for whom anything but the absolute Letter of the Law is dubious at best and criminal at worst. Similarly, the rule of the Adeptus Terra is slow and cumbersome, operating more through its own inexorable momentum than anything else. Those are the laws of the Imperium... and it is because of those laws that the Inquisition must be beyond such matters so that it may do its duty - they do not work within the Imperium, but rather beyond and beside it, and must be exempt from its restrictions so that they may save it from those who would exploit and pervert it.

Revoking an Inquisitor's seal... it's a physical matter. You go up to him, and you take it off him. An Inquisitor is stripped of his authority by being stripped of the means to exercise that authority - the seal, the accompanying rosettes, methods of interstellar travel, etc. But, as nobody outside the Inquisition can really question the demands of an Inquisitor (even without the Seal - it is absolute proof of authority, but rarely is the seal itself actually revealed, as generally the mere threat of Inquisitorial scrutiny is sufficient to obtain some measure of compliance), the safest way to strip an Inquisitor of his rank for good is to execute him... it's also what makes true renegade Inquisitors and similar (such as Ferran Ghast, in Disciples of the Dark Gods) so dangerous, and the Inquisition so eager to bring them down, and what makes the matter of selecting new Inquisitors so difficult a matter.

At least, as I see it.

Edit: Upon further inspection, the Thorian Sourcebook does shed some light on the matter of eliminating dangerous Inquisitors:

"One of the most dire reasons for a conclave to be convened is for the adjudication between two Inquisitors. An Inquisitor is above any judge but his peers, and thus it is required that for an Inquisitor be brought to trial a fellow Inquisitor must act as prosecutor. In these situations, and Inquisitor Lord will convene the conclave, often with the accused being in absentia, and a panel of three or more Inquisitors will hear the case to be answered. Such a Conclave can find an Inquisitor negligent, incompetent or worse. The greatest sentence handed down by these conclaves is the declaration of Traitoris Excommunicate - the Inquisitor is found to be a heretic and is to be hunted down at all costs.

"It has been known for Inquisitors to declare another Inquisitor traitor without recourse to a conclave, as may be necessary to prevent a deviant from escaping, or when physical conflict is imminent. In such cases, a conclave of enquiry will be held after the events have unfolded. Sometimes such conclaves do not occur within the lifetime of the accused or the accuser, and they must make their judgement based on whatever evidence remains. Given the flexible mission of the Inquisition and the individuals that make up its ranks, such trial conclaves are limited in the punishments they can mete out on the guilty. One cannot simply stop being an Inquisitor, and so censures and other threats carry little weight. Most often, the guilty party may be subjected to further examination - in itself, not a pleasant experience - and this is usually enough to provide an Inquisitor with a new incentive to re-examine his priorities and agenda."

Which all makes sense, laws or not - an Inquisitor possesses essentially limitless authority, and thus the only thing with greater authority and resources... is several Inquisitors. Consequently, only a group of Inquisitors is deemed appropriate to judge the means and methods of any given member of the Inquisition... but similarly, there is nothing to prevent a lone Inquisitor from taking matters into his own hands and dealing with the matter personally rather than gathering together like-minded peers to deal with the matter in a civil fashion.

In addition, the Rosette is in an of itself a symbol, but it can be revoked without eliminating the physical item. In most high security situations the Rosette is validated against independent third-party sources (the various Inquisitorial palaces). So a rogue Inquisitor can use his rosette, but in most high security situations his rosette will be worthless as it needs to be validated. Like say for example when attempting to gain access to encrypted sources, enter an Administratum facility or commandeer an Imperial vessel.

Can a rogue Inquisitor bully, frighten and fight his way around the checks and balances? Surely, but he wouldn't have to do this if his rosette weren't marked as invalid. In Cadia, for example, Inquisitorial rosettes seem to always be cross-checked.

It's very similar to a passport. Your passport can be reported stolen and marked as invalid. Sure you can go to a bank, hotel or any other place and flash it as a form of identification, but if you flash it to an immigration officer with access to Interpol's database you'll be flagged as having an invalid passport. Even if the passport has a valid date and was valid at the time of emission.

Also like an FBI, Secret Service or any other authoritative badge. It can be flashed around to intimidate the weak and ignorant, but it's not worth a **** against powerful entities that can cross check and validate the use of such power. An Inquisitor is no different, and there are multiple instances of rosettes being validated prior to orders being executed. Exterminatus being one of them, a rogue Inquisitor who has been judged by his peers as unfit for office would have a hard time obtaining a third-party validation for his rosette, and Exterminatus would be out of his hands.

And finally, it all comes back to what the Rosette stands for. It stands for the IoM and the Inquisition's backing of the individual carrying said rosette. For an Traitoris Excommunicate Inquisitor there is no such backing, no one will come and punish the planet, captain or navy that refuses to aid a heretic. He might have de jure authority, but his de facto authority is nil.

Lexicanum said:

One of the reasons I'm increasingly annoyed by the fact that we lost three very good background chapters during the development of Dark Heresy... the original chapter detailing the Inquisition actually dealt with the Rosette/Seal matter:

"Each Inquisitor bears an Inquisitorial Seal, a small amulet or icon in the shape of the stylised ‘I’ of the Inquisition. This seal is their badge of office and for an Inquisitor to reveal it shows that he is demanding that his authority be respected. An Inquisitor who shows his seal to a Planetary Governor, for instance, expects to have the planet’s resources at his disposal from that moment onwards. The Inquisitorial Seal is, in a sense, an Inquisitor’s most important item of equipment, and he will never willingly relinquish it. Some Seals incorporate circuits and probes that can be used to hack into cogitators and open electronic locks, or double as simple weapons to ensure the Inquisitor is never unarmed.

"An Inquisitor can also display the Inquisitorial Rosette, a symbol of the Inquisition (often the ‘I’ symbol with a stylised skull in the centre) worn on an Inquisitor’s clothing or wargear. The Rosette can be worn by those in an Inquisitor’s employ, and can also be displayed on vehicles or armed forces being used by the Inquisitor. The Rosette signifies that an individual is in the employ of the Inquisition and is enough to ensure the cooperation of most Adepts and citizens who know of the Inquisition’s purpose. The Rosette, however, is used very sparingly, as most Inquisitors prefer to keep themselves and their associates low-key, and is most commonly used when in the company of fellow Inquisitors or when an Inquisitor wishes to exploit the aura of power and menace surrounding the Inquisition"