I've been heading a campaign for some time now, mainly focusing on a heretek cult and human opponents, threats from within, etc. The thing is, one of the PCs, the group's psyker is maybe a wee bit too soft (yes, I guess that happens). How do you think an inquisitor would respond if he refuses to carry out orders?

I think it would depend on the severity of the refusal. Did he refuse to kill a rogue psyker resulting in a powerful witch escaping? Or was it something less dangerous? To be perfectly honest though I think most Inquisitors would declare them a traitor for not following orders, but some might be prepared to address any concerns and explain why the orders were given. Depends a bit on how you have portrayed their Inquisitor so far.

Id say i depends alot on the Inquisitor in questin, but i would imagine a person with that much power would be rather angry when he doesnt get what he wants.

Also depending on the PC's reasoning for not following the order, the inquisitor may be convinced it was the right call to refuse the order.

Lazzuu said:

Execution. Especially since it undermines his (absolute) athority and could weaken him in the eyes of his peers. At least this is what I would imagine for refusing to carry out a direct order.

On the other hand, most Inquisitors (and especially those a common GM would most probably use as PC patron) take Acolytes for the very reason that they come to their own conclusions and think for themselves (which is rather seldom in the restrictive, feudal Imperium). So, if an Acolyte refuses an abstract order to kill everyone witthin a cult cell, because he finds a couple of abduted children (that show no sign of corruption) in their midst and relesases them, this might be OK, as in this concrete case it was not what the Inquistor meant by his abstarct order.

The same could be the case for an order to burn everything to the ground in an area and the Acolyte finds a valuable piece of Archaeotech or an atomic warhead in the area. The Inquisitor certainly would expect the Acolyte to use his cerebral cortex and not execute his order to the letter.

Reprimanding him might be the most fitting thing for an Inquisitor the first time an Acolyte does not fulfill his expectations. Especially santioned Psykers are a valuable asset even for an Inquisitor, that one would not simply execute out of hand. Carrot-and-stick policy in regard to equipment and promotion might be a good way (also from a gaming perspective).

There are also compromises between grimdark execution and "slap on the wrist" reprimands which may not bother the player too much and might only lead to them repeating their actions, undermining the Inquisitor's authority within the setting and thus the atmosphere of working for a hardcore pragmatic organisation serving a tyrannical regime.

For example … amputation.

Have the Inquisitor take an eye, and tell the character that next time he'll take "something more valuable than that".
It should not affect the character too much (mechanically, in terms of performance for the group), and if the character learns from this, the Inquisitor might show leniency and sponsor him an artificial replacement later.

Psychologically, this is still a huge blow, which is why I'd only recommend such drastic action as a consequence for when a character really messed up and he'd get shot were he an NPC.

Inquisitors are going to be as varied as all of the gamemasters on here. Some would consider any quibbling over orders grounds for execution. Others would consider less severe options. Are they expected to improvise? Act without direct supervision? Are the situations moral gray areas, or clear cut violations of Imperial Creed? Are they only expected to exercise their authority as Acolytes over direct Ordo _____ concerns?

The action on the part of the Inquisitor, Interrogator, or even fellow Acolyte might be as light as a friendly reminder, as controlled as a stern PMI dressing down. (Poor Man's Infantry) It could be as harsh as "Wall-to-Wall" counseling. As vindictive as a month spent under the less than tender graces of the Ecclesiarchy. As prudent as interrogation and imprisonment on the suspicion of being a sympathizer?

I assume this is a game you'd like to keep going, so a Bolt Shell to the brainpan is a really bad way to instill "discipline" in the psyker. It might be true to character, but it's horrible for a campaign. Do not execute .

Lynata said:

A cent for every mentioning of “grimdark” in a forum dedicated to Warhammer and I would already be a very rich man.

Why is this “grimdark”? Being executed for refusing a direct order by a superior in a war or war-like environment (in the 41 ^st millennium there is only war…) would have been rather normal in about every culture and country for millennia (i.e. in fact since humankind evolved) just until a few decades ago.

IdOfEntity said:

You are absolutely right games-wise and the reason I would not execute him either. But make sure to your player that this would “normally” be the consequence of refusing a direct order.

Luthor Harkon said:

Agreed about the excessive use of the term, by the way, but I always figured this was some sort of tradition when it comes to this franchise.

Everything on here is good, I cant really say anything to add much. I have only executed a PC once. Which may honestly be to many times, but I discussed it at great lengths with the player first, and as he was moving to another state we would have needed to exit his character anyway, we decided that in light of his actions durring the last mission, since he was a psycher, the Inquisitor reliquished him to a Black Ship. This also added quite nicely to the mood of the game.

I am cuirous what exactly the player did / didnt do? What order did he disobay?

Everyones post is solid. Variable at play is the inquistor in question, IE Faction. I had a situation similar when the player made a "Personal" Integrity check. The inquistor didnt "Overtly" reprimanded them as She knew it would raise to many questions to her operations amongst those in the conclave. In turn she put them on a assignment where another group of Accolytes where ordered to kill a "Heretical" Adept. The NPC Accolytes took there time over the course of two sessions (To give the player in question chances to use there own influence and networks to possibly hear about this). In the end, Angelus Bolter round collapsed his "Free thinking mind" from a NPC Accolyte. The group in turn used this moment to spring board the Players Death into investigating this other group of accolytles and leading them further along the Web.

Play it off to the motivations of the Inquistor. Bombast Monodominat, Kill em. Anyone else, eh fifty fifty