I've never played in a Rogue Trader campaign, but it seems to me that they have a similar problem: despite everyone starting at Rank 1, one of the PCs is the 'Royal Captain-Lord' and all of the other PCs are merely his lackeys. How do they handle the radically different levels of authority in that game?

I think RT gets around it by saying that many of the other classes are either people hand-[icked by the RT (they SHOULD get along) or specialists that the RT can't live without, or emulate. Yeah, he's in charge, but like a pirate ship, he's only in charge while the crew tolerates it. If the Navigator says "I'm not steering", the RT, and everyone, can be screwed. Do you shoot the navigator? Good luck sailing, and the other Navs will not look smiling on the summary execution of one of their senior family members. Lock him up? He can't steer from there. Explorators are the same; your average RT could no more easily configure the plasma drive than steer through the Warp. He needs to keep the AdMech aboard happy, so that the ship stays viable. The Seneshal probably knows his secrets, and on down the list. It doesn't always work, but the RT is less well served aceing a fellow player than a Commissar punishing weakness. Of course, mileage varies, as always.

I wouldn't even call it a "problem" - is it really so difficult for people to make their characters "fit in" as soon as the game involves any kind of hierarchy?

[...]

Yes, for some people, this is a huge issue. It's practically a trope. It's the reason I don't really like having character options like this in the base game, or as a base assumption that the players can take. It should be assigned by or taken in collaboration with the GM.

It's really not an issue with roleplaying, it's an issue of personality type. There's no shortage of people in "real life" (not to suggest that players gathering around a table (electronic or otherwise) isn't "real") that are a nice enough sort but turn into self-entitled draconic red-tape paladins with an inferiority complex the size of Finland as soon as you give them any kind of position of authority.

I wouldn't even call it a "problem" - is it really so difficult for people to make their characters "fit in" as soon as the game involves any kind of hierarchy?

[...]

Yes, for some people, this is a huge issue. It's practically a trope. It's the reason I don't really like having character options like this in the base game, or as a base assumption that the players can take. It should be assigned by or taken in collaboration with the GM.

It's really not an issue with roleplaying, it's an issue of personality type. There's no shortage of people in "real life" (not to suggest that players gathering around a table (electronic or otherwise) isn't "real") that are a nice enough sort but turn into self-entitled draconic red-tape paladins with an inferiority complex the size of Finland as soon as you give them any kind of position of authority.

Suomi mainittu, Torilla tavataan.

Well I decided to remove Support Specialisations from my game for just the reason that I wanted players to start from the very bottom and not being "We are the Best of the Best".

Well one point might have been that one player was drunk when players made their characters and he said his Commissar shall shoot other players character for insubordination.

It was very close we all didn't throw him out or into cold shower.

He has redeemed himself after that with his good playing of the teams Sergeant.

Also, not sure if you guys are talking about DnD, or if Paladin is some special type of character in the 40k universe. Only play WHFB as far as minis go and this rpg was my first foray into the 40k universe.

Also, not sure if you guys are talking about DnD, or if Paladin is some special type of character in the 40k universe. Only play WHFB as far as minis go and this rpg was my first foray into the 40k universe.

DnD, or paladins in the general RPG sense. Such characters are a classic and traditional example of potential inter-group conflict as those characters' convictions may clash with how less "lawful" archetypes such as the party's rogue.

Some groups circumvent such possible issues by planning their group to avoid character concepts with conflicting ideologies from the start, others roleplay around them. It's only an issue if the players make it one, and most RPGs have similar "traps".

Even just looking at FFG's 40k games ... in Dark Heresy, put a Psyker and a Battle Sister in a group and watch the fun unfold. In Rogue Trader, I guess there's some potential for conflict with the ship's chief Tech-Priest and the Ministorum emissary. In Black Crusade you have a bunch of evil cultists and CSM, all of whom should love to declare themselves the boss and who should have no problem backstabbing their allies if it serves their plans. The list goes on.

For the sake of completeness, though - yes, 40k also has a character type called "Paladin", a Grey Knights unit type . Don't be fooled by the name, though. Depending on whether you're looking at Dark Heresy's "Daemonhammer" supplement or current tabletop Codex fluff, those Paladins are not very knightly at all, sharing only the euphemistic title and appearance with the chivalrous defenders of virtue.

I wouldn't even call it a "problem" - is it really so difficult for people to make their characters "fit in" as soon as the game involves any kind of hierarchy?

[...]

Yes, for some people, this is a huge issue. It's practically a trope. It's the reason I don't really like having character options like this in the base game, or as a base assumption that the players can take. It should be assigned by or taken in collaboration with the GM.

It's really not an issue with roleplaying, it's an issue of personality type. There's no shortage of people in "real life" (not to suggest that players gathering around a table (electronic or otherwise) isn't "real") that are a nice enough sort but turn into self-entitled draconic red-tape paladins with an inferiority complex the size of Finland as soon as you give them any kind of position of authority.

This has some fairly obvious truth to it. One solution I have used in RT is that the players (Not their characters) must elect the individual among them that will play the RT. This is with the clear understanding that in the WH 40k has a very 18th century approach to rank Hierarchy and the Captain's word is FINAL and ABSOLUTE. A wise player does in fact conference with the other players for all the reasons stated above. But the election tends to ensure that the (mental) 12 yr old with the Napolean complex is NOT the captain! Most players are friends after all and have a pretty good idea of who their friends are. If there was a need for a Commissar in one of my games (Or any other specialist for that matter!) I would probably use the same approach. (As a sidenote: I was utterly honored and surprised when I was "elected" to Captain a game I originally walked into as a guest! I still polled every player to make sure they were "okay" with my interpretation of what a captain was and it turned out nicely. But that's sort of my point ) If the players make an informed choice about their leadership then their will be less hard feelings later.

Ah yes, good old paladins. I play one in 4e, and he's one of my favorite characters. There's no rules about smiting party members the moment they break the law or adhering to an ultra-strict code of conduct in this edition, so they can be played fairly easily. More like a fanatic than a cop.

Ah, sorry. Maybe my age was showing there. "D&D" is Dungeons & Dragons, and the Paladin as I mentioned it is a holy warrior, gifted with miraculous powers by a God. They, in previous editions, at least, tended to be the least fun class, as they have a built-in mechanic that takes their powers away if their alignment ever shifts away from Lawful Good. That means that they can't let most infractions of Law and Justice go unpunished. If you have a talented thief, or a lusty bard in your group, he can't let their infractions go, either. So you have to "turn the paladin", and make sure he doesn't see you pick the merchant's pocket, or whatever, or he'll try to stop you. Sort of how, minus that one time, Link doesn't sneak into shops at night, and take whatever he needs. That bottle or bow might cost more than the shop, but they don't haggle. The world WILL come to an end if he fails, but if it doesn't, those shopkeepers can't afford the loss of goods (especially since Link is their only customer ) Played right, they can be fun, and very useful, but if the rest of your group is kind of silly, and maybe not always serious AND law-abiding, he can rain on your parade, and if he doesn't, he becomes a half-ass fighter. Things other characters would wave off, or say "I'll just make up for it, tomorrow" are things that WILL break the palie, if the GM is doing their job right, and getting them back is another alignment change (back), AND THEN a quest from their God, to prove their worth. All very tedious.

Commissars can be much the same way, ruining your fun, frowning on your contraband, and generally making the party feel a bit not at ease, but his Russian hat is tighter than the paladin's helm, and so he will just cap your head if you misbehave (occasionally).

Also, not sure if you guys are talking about DnD, or if Paladin is some special type of character in the 40k universe. Only play WHFB as far as minis go and this rpg was my first foray into the 40k universe.

DnD, or paladins in the general RPG sense. Such characters are a classic and traditional example of potential inter-group conflict as those characters' convictions may clash with how less "lawful" archetypes such as the party's rogue.

Some groups circumvent such possible issues by planning their group to avoid character concepts with conflicting ideologies from the start, others roleplay around them. It's only an issue if the players make it one, and most RPGs have similar "traps".

Even just looking at FFG's 40k games ... in Dark Heresy, put a Psyker and a Battle Sister in a group and watch the fun unfold. In Rogue Trader, I guess there's some potential for conflict with the ship's chief Tech-Priest and the Ministorum emissary. In Black Crusade you have a bunch of evil cultists and CSM, all of whom should love to declare themselves the boss and who should have no problem backstabbing their allies if it serves their plans. The list goes on.

For the sake of completeness, though - yes, 40k also has a character type called "Paladin", a Grey Knights unit type . Don't be fooled by the name, though. Depending on whether you're looking at Dark Heresy's "Daemonhammer" supplement or current tabletop Codex fluff, those Paladins are not very knightly at all, sharing only the euphemistic title and appearance with the chivalrous defenders of virtue.

Arbitrator of the Adeptus Arbites.

While there is a lot of interpretations and workarounds that a GM or a player can use that may be harder to pull of with, say, a traditional DnD Paladin, there is no end to the amount of trouble a badly-played Adeptus Arbites (and not even really badly played, just badly concepted to mesh with the group!) Arbitrator can cause in a Dark Heresy game (or, good heavens, if you work such a character into Rogue Trader).

I've found that Rogue Trader offers quite a wide berth for everyone, though, much due to the whole thing with most (all?) careers being intrinsically important to the ship or affairs. The fact that everyone is de facto extralegal in concept already should help.

God I'd like to play a Commissar on a Navy Ship for Rogue Trader...

The world WILL come to an end if he fails, but if it doesn't, those shopkeepers can't afford the loss of goods (especially since Link is their only customer )

See, here I think it's just that a lot of players seem to prefer the fast and easy route rather than considering the potential in roleplaying that comes with such a situation. A Paladin would object to common thievery, but if this bottle is so incredibly important that there is no other way to save the world, then perhaps the party could convince the Paladin to talk to the shopkeeper and appeal to the authority of their church - or the Paladin could even begin to regard the shopkeeper as the wrongdoer as their egoism obviously threatens the safety of everyone else.

On the other hand, if that bottle is just a common health potion, then it is not a critical component, and the thief should stop justifying their laziness with the cause.

In the d20 Warcraft RPG there was a rather interesting sub-class of the Paladin - the Scarlet Crusader, a prime example of why "Paladin" does not have to mean playing a Whiteknight who cares only for what the letter of the law says, especially as said letter of the law is different in every nation and in every church. What matters is the cause, and if your cause is just (or you at least believe it is) then you can justify a whole lot of nasty things, and I think this is what a lot of Paladin players often forget.

In the Warcraft RPG, a Paladin would lose their holy powers if they would begin to doubt the righteousness of their actions. Since burning down villages and torturing supposed cultists is all for the Greater Good of eradicating the Plague of Undeath ... well.

Granted, in most D&D settings, a Paladin gets their power bestowed upon by their deity, but given that deities have their own personalities, I think the concept of the "auto-fall" or the conflict without resort is just a result of not thinking things through.

Otherwise I agree with your assessment, tho!

Arbitrator of the Adeptus Arbites.

Ow, I totally forgot about those. Yes, Arbites and Scum are another fun combination.

Arbites and Scum are another fun combination

Yes.

Although not always for the obvious reason - in our last campaign the scummer was most disconcerted that wherever the acolytes went, the Arbitrator seemed to always have better and friendlier criminal underworld contacts than he did...

I can imagine his looks.