As far as I understand things, Commies have absolute power to insure that orders are followed.

They cannot actually GIVE orders.

That's what the sergeant does.

Semantics. Their mandate is to ensure that orders are followed, and to do this, it is fairly obvious that orders will have to be given. When the Commissar tells you to kill the guardsman that is endangering the mission (and thus threatening the execution of the mission, i.e. the order), is that an order, or is it merely him ensuring that orders are followed?

The Sergeant's orders is to lead the squad in order to complete a mission. The problem with Commissars is that their authority supercedes the Sergeants, and if the Sergeant gives orders that counters (or is perceived to counter) the greater mandate of the Commissar authorizes him to intervene in practically any way he deems necessary.

Nobody likes a Commissar. The soldiers fear that he'll think that they are not executing the orders of the Sergeant properly. The Sergeants fear he'll think that they're not executing the orders of the General properly. The Generals fear that he'll think that they're not executing the orders of the Planetary Governor properly. The Planetary Governors fear that he'll think that they are not executing the orders of Sector Command properly. And so on and so forth. And all the while you have no idea if he has secondary or tertiary orders that might run counter to what you think is the mission.

Turns out the mission isn't the mission.

The mission is necrons.

Congratulations and welcome to the mind-cleanse.

It is not merely semantics. The Commissar has no authority to issue the order "attack that fortified position over there" or to supersede such an order once it is given.

Once that order is given, though, he has full authority to enforce it.

As far as I understand things, Commies are not part of the IG command structure at all and hence have no authority to give commands.

"The chief task of the Commissar is to preserve the fighting spirit and loyalty of the regiment. If discipline is lax the Commissar will step in to reinforce it. If the regiments officers are incompetent or lack courage the Commissar must retrain and fortify them or, failing that, allow the regiment's squads to be dispersed to other commanders." - Codex: Imperial Guard, 2nd ed.

"Commissars are ruthless individuals who have been thoroughly indoctrinated into the Imperial Creed, to the extent that it takes precedence over any feelings of compassion or common humanity. They are more feared than the enemy (and often hated) by troops in the Imperial Guard army, and will not hesitate to ensure discipline through use of fear and intimidation." - Codex: Imperial Guard, 3rd edition

"Rigid adherents to the Imperial Creed, Commissars are ruthless, fearless individuals whose dedication to the service of the Emperor overrides any compassion or mercy for the men they must sometime lead in battle. Universally feared by those around them, Commissars have the power to execute any troopers (or officers) found wanting." - Codex: Imperial Guard, 4th edition

"Commissars are ruthless and courageous individuals. Rigid adherents of the Imperial Creed, their dedication to the service of the Emperor overrides any feelings of compassion, mercy or common humanity for the men they must lead in battle. Universally feared, and often hated by those around them, Commissars have the power to summarily execute any trooper or officer found wanting on the field of battle. It is the Commissar's duty to maintain the morale, discipline and fighting spirit of the regiment and to punish cowardice and incompetence wherever it is found. The knowledge that a Commissar is looking over their shoulder for the slightest lapse focuses the minds of the Guardsmen considerably. Such is their reputation that in some regiments the wrath of the Commissar is more feared than the enemy." Codex: Imperial Guard, 5th edition.

It's interesting to look at the evolution of the role of Commissar over the history of the game. For instance, the signature Summery Execution rule was only introduced in the 4th edition... and in all instances is refers only to those troopers or officers "found wanting." The key role of the Commissar remains fairly consistent: to maintain morale, discipline and fighting spirit... though the methods become increasingly more draconian. Nowhere, however, is the Commissar referred to as a command officer. By my reading of the various Codexes, nowhere is it the role of the Commissar is not to give orders (save only in the case of a Commissar taking command in the absence of any command officer). His role is to maintain morale, discipline and fighting spirit. That is his only regular area of authority, but in that area his authority is absolute.

As far as I understand things, Commies have absolute power to insure that orders are followed.

They cannot actually GIVE orders.

That's what the sergeant does.

Semantics. Their mandate is to ensure that orders are followed, and to do this, it is fairly obvious that orders will have to be given. When the Commissar tells you to kill the guardsman that is endangering the mission (and thus threatening the execution of the mission, i.e. the order), is that an order, or is it merely him ensuring that orders are followed?

The Sergeant's orders is to lead the squad in order to complete a mission. The problem with Commissars is that their authority supercedes the Sergeants, and if the Sergeant gives orders that counters (or is perceived to counter) the greater mandate of the Commissar authorizes him to intervene in practically any way he deems necessary.

Nobody likes a Commissar. The soldiers fear that he'll think that they are not executing the orders of the Sergeant properly. The Sergeants fear he'll think that they're not executing the orders of the General properly. The Generals fear that he'll think that they're not executing the orders of the Planetary Governor properly. The Planetary Governors fear that he'll think that they are not executing the orders of Sector Command properly. And so on and so forth. And all the while you have no idea if he has secondary or tertiary orders that might run counter to what you think is the mission.

Turns out the mission isn't the mission.

The mission is necrons.

Congratulations and welcome to the mind-cleanse.

It is not merely semantics. The Commissar has no authority to issue the order "attack that fortified position over there" or to supersede such an order once it is given.

Once that order is given, though, he has full authority to enforce it.

As far as I understand things, Commies are not part of the IG command structure at all and hence have no authority to give commands.

Oh, but it is. Everyone is bound by command structure, and the Commissar is definitely bound by the command structure simply by being attached to a regiment. Commissars are assigned to regiments by the Departmento Munitorum, the same organization that makes up the entirety of the Imperial Guard.

When enforcing orders given, it is mere semantics, because as pointed out by LuciusT, his authority is absolute . The commissars doesn't just enforce the orders given by, say, a Sergeant. His mandate is to ensure that they are all carried out, and have a virtual carte blanche to ensure it.

If no-one else is giving the orders necessary ( suffocate this man in his bed, he is slowing us down and endangering the mission ), he has full authority to force the issue, amounting to essentially giving an order. Whether he is actually giving orders or simply forcing someone else to take a given decision or perform a certain act is the very definition of semantics.

Read up on Commissars at Lexicanum, if you're interested: http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Commissar

It would've been hard to have an Imperial Guard game that did not allow you to play Commissars, since they are such an iconic part of the Imperial Guard, but there are definite issues with relative narrative power-level, and sometimes the game (and not just this, it goes for several of FFG:s WH40kRP games, Rogue Trader comes to mind) seems to assume a bit much when it comes to players actually being able to self-moderate or their pre-existing knowledge of the 40k universe.

Just a note: Commissars are NOT Inquisitors! (Though their role is similar.) They do not have the authority to execute anybody on a whim! Certainly not a planetary governor! (That would require an Inquisitor or an Arbiter Judge). I have always been under the impression that if a Commissar is to take command of a unit they will be granted a rank appropriate to their responsibility (Such as Colonel-Commissar Ibram Gaunt who commands a Regiment.) Other than that their role is to enforce discipline and help maintain morale. (Think; Soviet political officer) They do not have the power to give tactical or strategic orders on the battlefield as that is the role of said unit's officers. They DO have the authority to enforce order up to and including summary execution when necessary. Note that execution in the fluff is almost entirely reserved to when the unit is actually in battle. Otherwise, The IG has it's own code of military justice that it employs for legal matters. I remember one the Gaunt's ghosts novels where a Guardsman was on trial for the murder of a civilian. Neither the unit Commissar nor the CO had any Summary execution ability in this case as they were not in a combat situation! This is also what prevents commissars from executing their way up the command chain! They must actually witness an act of Cowardice on the field of battle in order to commit to a Summary execution. I also believe that a Commissars actions are subject to extensive review from the lord Commissar and the Adeptus munitorium to whom they answer. Anyway, My point is simple: The Commissar does not have the authority to 'Order' an Execution of anyone! They certainly do not have the authority to murder a civilian! They would still be tried for murder in such a case (Although, in the Imperium, they might still be exonerated for holding to the "needs of the mission"). Woe betide the Commissar if "little Timmy" turned out to be related to some Noble somewhere! Just sayin...

It's interesting to look at the evolution of the role of Commissar over the history of the game. For instance, the signature Summery Execution rule was only introduced in the 4th edition... and in all instances is refers only to those troopers or officers "found wanting." The key role of the Commissar remains fairly consistent: to maintain morale, discipline and fighting spirit... though the methods become increasingly more draconian. Nowhere, however, is the Commissar referred to as a command officer. By my reading of the various Codexes, nowhere is it the role of the Commissar is not to give orders (save only in the case of a Commissar taking command in the absence of any command officer). His role is to maintain morale, discipline and fighting spirit. That is his only regular area of authority, but in that area his authority is absolute.

Yeah they have been changed quite a bit over time, as best I understand them they've been given a broad brush as a political officer to function in two, mostly non-combat areas:

Loyalty

Purity

Loyalty means shooting people who run away, cowardice, possessed psykers etc, as we all know they're fairly trigger happy in that role. However, it also would entail policing the guard & its officers for signs of sedition, grumbling and being malcontents on a regular basis, it'd range from being painful to downright dangerous to be heard or seen to be openly complaining overly much about a situation that reflects or infers badly on the Imperium and he/she would have much less tolerance for any officers or NCO's caught bitching... as we all know, poo flows down hill.

Note carefully, there is a difference between saying-

"The chow is horrible and tastes funny"

and

"The chow is horrible because the Dept Munitorium puts rat genitals in it"

One is a statement of fact and not much of an issue, the other is essentially denigrating your boss, it might get you a years KP or a beating in front of the company and all the gonads you can eat if you're just Joe Guard... if you're an officer, the punishment will be much more severe and might see you on a good day, getting demoted if you can lawyer your way out of it.

Purity is a much more interesting area that can have a fairly huge blanket thrown over a whole heap of subjective things. Modification to equipment in unprescribed manners, ignoring the grooming standards while in camp, praying to ancestors, growing an extra nose due to warp corruption, picking up xeno/chaos gear, extreamly abberant and deviant behaviours; these might also catch the eye of the Commisar and force him to police it, if he feels the integrity of the combat unit is at risk.

Depending on the Commisar, he might see a bunch of long-hairs, un-polished boots with dirty weapons in the barracks, he'll take that up with their CO or NCO and snap his foot off in their officer's arsehole for letting the troops get sloppy- who will also in turn, do the same to the troops, or he might take it up with the whole platoon.

Growing an extra arm despite how useful it may seem, having a pet baby Ripper, taking souveniring xeno/chaos flags, symbols body parts, weapons and so forth, is always going to end really badly, regardless of who did it.

Commisar's are a harder class to play correctly, they do fill a very important role in the command structure and GM's should be really careful that the player qualifies with enough knowledge on how the Imperium works and also how Imperial Guard discipline works. Otherwise you end up with some guy, being a complete **** and just arbitrarily shooting at other players for all manner of (probably incorrect) reasons and his amusement at someone elses expense.

As funny as it may seem to shoot someone elses character, by all means have them be able to fight back with whatever they have and if its out in the bush... if the commisar has an accident with the back of your entrenching tool or a live melta bomb and is buried in a shallow hole because he was being unbearable, sometimes that happens.

In fact, it probably happens quite a lot when no one else is around to see it

There's a few ideas of mine out there for GM's to take the class to the level of responsibility it needs to keep it out of the hands of wankers.

[...]

Commisar's are a harder class to play correctly, they do fill a very important role in the command structure and GM's should be really careful that the player qualifies with enough knowledge on how the Imperium works and also how Imperial Guard discipline works. Otherwise you end up with some guy, being a complete **** and just arbitrarily shooting at other players for all manner of (probably incorrect) reasons and his amusement at someone elses expense.

As funny as it may seem to shoot someone elses character, by all means have them be able to fight back with whatever they have and if its out in the bush... if the commisar has an accident with the back of your entrenching tool or a live melta bomb and is buried in a shallow hole because he was being unbearable, sometimes that happens.

In fact, it probably happens quite a lot when no one else is around to see it

There's a few ideas of mine out there for GM's to take the class to the level of responsibility it needs to keep it out of the hands of wankers.

This. Commissars going off the rails are, luckily, rather easy to... "correct". There's been stories about regiments where Commissars routinely go missing if they abuse their powers or become overzealous. Returning to the Commissar that basically said "please smother your brother-in-arms with a pillow so we might get going", that's the kind of action that might land him a kidney-stone looking surprisingly much like a shiv.

If a Commissar player abuses his authority or goes off the rails in a way that is impacting the squadmates negatively and detracts from the playing experience of other players, the GM should make him memorize "I fell down the stairs" and "I walked into a door" as a matter of courtesy, but if push comes to shove, there's also the prospect of him simply waking up with a pillow over his face, also known as rocks fall, everyone dies . It's a perfectly valid response from abused soldiers and a player that does not realize it should be made aware that no amount of authority matters if you can't use it properly.

People born from our modernist contemporary society tends to confuse legality with authority and authority with ability. Remind players like that with the errors of their ways.

40K Commissars are loosely based on the NKVD political commissars attached to the Soviet army in WWII.

Who did not BTW have the authority to lead anything.

40K Commissars are loosely based on the NKVD political commissars attached to the Soviet army in WWII.

Who did not BTW have the authority to lead anything.

Well, things being loosely based on something doesn't mean that it has any bearing on how it actually is in the setting itself. This goes for a great many things. The number of things in the 40k setting "based on" real-life counterparts are legion, yet very few adhere to the real-life depiction in anything more than the purely cosmetic.

But as for political commissars not being able to lead anything, whether this is relevant or not (it's not), I just want to point out that you're dead wrong . Up until '41, it was a huge issue, and the issue continued in a diminished fashion for years.

40K Commissars are loosely based on the NKVD political commissars attached to the Soviet army in WWII.

Who did not BTW have the authority to lead anything.

Well, things being loosely based on something doesn't mean that it has any bearing on how it actually is in the setting itself. This goes for a great many things. The number of things in the 40k setting "based on" real-life counterparts are legion, yet very few adhere to the real-life depiction in anything more than the purely cosmetic.

But as for political commissars not being able to lead anything, whether this is relevant or not (it's not), I just want to point out that you're dead wrong . Up until '41, it was a huge issue, and the issue continued in a diminished fashion for years.

Very interesting link. I think it highlights very well what the 40k commissar is supposed to be. At the small unit (Squad) lvl they do not appear to have much actual military authority. At regimental level however, things change. The Commissar is a "Political Officer" and as such a representative of the Adeptus terra and the Adeptus Munitorium. While they may not give actual orders for troop movements and such they certainly have a say with the Lord general that does! The same is true in smaller units that a Commissar is attached to. It is the Sergeant's or the unit officer's job to give the orders as to what (Specifically) the unit does. The Commissar's role is to observe the unit and see to it that their actions are in keeping with what he knows the strategic objectives are. This is at the heart of the 'Summary execution' thing. If soldiers desert the field they cannot complete their objectives. Here's a little known fact: Democracies have the same thing but they tone it down a bit. MP's are deployed into combat zones behind the lines and will shoot deserters if they find them!

I'll elaborate since my comment seemed to spark some debate. We were doing a pre-made mission where you attack some orcs, get holed up in a cave under overwhelming fire, then emerge and have to gtfo of there before the navy glasses the entire area from space.

The sergeant was freshly dead, and for the remainder of the adventure we basically turned to the commissar as the defacto commander. The squad was very newly assembled, and few of them knew each other well, so not too attached. Since we're a mature group the whole thing went smoothly and the player with the commissar was very narrative-friendly. He was giving orders, making decisions, and speaking for us when we interacted with officers and commissars. Is any of this very out-of-line with the fluff? Is it more difficult to run a game if one player doesn't run a sergeant, or the GM doesn't run a sergeant who is active in our decisions? Does every squad have a sergeant, even a group of 5 people sent on recon? Is it bizarre for us to be accompanied by a commissar but no sergeant?

He usually incorporated our group will into his decisions (either when characters made direct suggestions or assessments to him, or when players at the table made a suggestion that seemed like a sensible idea for a sensible commissar to come up with). This works out with his character's decisions being a combination of his and the groups, but since his decisions effect a lot it ends up with everyone being able to contribute fairly evenly.

Without trying to be offensive, what age are the groups who have found it necessary to ban commissars?

Sounds like your Commissar played his role right!

"Fluff" depends on where you look, and you as gamers have just as much of a right to make changes as the various novel authors and RPG writers - there is no absolute consistency in 40k (see here for some quotes), so I'd say as long as everyone in your group is comfortable with how your campaign proceeds, you're doing it right!

If you want to have my personal, Codex-based opinion, though:

• Whether or not such a small squad has a Sergeant may depend on the type of squad (tank or infantry?). Consider also, however, that the class Sergeant need not necessarily be the rank Sergeant; such a character could easily be played as a Corporal in charge of a fireteam operating separately from the rest of the squad. Also keep in mind that your Comrades count as squad members, too! 5 players means 10 soldiers.
• I'd deem it "non standard" for a Commissar to accompany such a small unit. However, possible explanations could be the importance of the mission, the morale of the squad (perhaps he is there to evaluate them?), or the Commissar's own lack of experience (perhaps he was assigned a seemingly easy mission by the regiment's Lord Commissar to get him settled in?). This is actually nice roleplaying potential, with the troops being like "oh Emperor what did we do? did we mess up? is he going to kill us?" etc.

The sergeant was freshly dead, and for the remainder of the adventure we basically turned to the commissar as the defacto commander. The squad was very newly assembled, and few of them knew each other well, so not too attached. Since we're a mature group the whole thing went smoothly and the player with the commissar was very narrative-friendly. He was giving orders, making decisions, and speaking for us when we interacted with officers and commissars. Is any of this very out-of-line with the fluff? Is it more difficult to run a game if one player doesn't run a sergeant, or the GM doesn't run a sergeant who is active in our decisions? Does every squad have a sergeant, even a group of 5 people sent on recon? Is it bizarre for us to be accompanied by a commissar but no sergeant?

This is fair enough. As stated, a commissar can attach himself wherever he feels he's needed - usually this either means "you are on a critical mission" (good) or "you are a known bunch of reprobates" (bad). Whilst he doesn't and can't legally command the unit, this doesn't stop him being the defacto leader if there isn't an officer or NCO present, but he would be expected to be a bit more consultative than a normal officer, because strictly speaking he is 'advising' and 'suggesting' that you should get a fething move on and do what he says, not 'ordering' you to.

For reference, a unit sent out solo might well not contain a sergeant, especially if it's just a fire-team, but would probably have a more junior NCO.

A Corporal, Lance-Corporal, Subsergeant, Optio, Ancient, Armsman, or whatever term is relevant for your regiment usually leads the 'second half' of a squad and is the designated second-in-command if the sergeant has an unfortunate chainsword enema.

Such an individual could be any of the regimental specialities because he doesn't really gain anything from it in terms of training, but you'll generally find in 'proper' militaries that there's always a designated successor to the guy in charge of any unit.

Just a note: Commissars are NOT Inquisitors! (Though their role is similar.) They do not have the authority to execute anybody on a whim! Certainly not a planetary governor!

Commissar Holt disagrees.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOi3CzZjV0M

Just a note: Commissars are NOT Inquisitors! (Though their role is similar.) They do not have the authority to execute anybody on a whim! Certainly not a planetary governor!

Commissar Holt disagrees.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOi3CzZjV0M

Point of note: Commissar Holt did not actually shoot the Governor. (Even if said Governor believed he would!) He caused said governor to place him in command of the "Troops" and thus restore dicipline to the force in question. This would be one of those "Gray areas". Under review (And there would be one!) the Commissar would probably be exonerated. Had he actually shot the Governor he might not have been! It Is the Province of the Inquisition and the Adeptus Arbites to deal with matters of planetary misgovernance. Had a Judge or an Inquisitor done the exact same thing they would have been considered merciful as compared to their options. Had the Commissar been acting under the authority of either of the above to figures their would again, be no questions asked! Acting on his own in this form would no doubt trigger a board of review that would be examined by either an Arbiter judge or an Inquisitor. If (or when) they determined that they supported his decision and it was the same as their's would have been they could choose to defuse the issue. If not, The Commissar would join the Governor in whatever state he was in!

This topic seems to be one that involves a lot of interpretation - and thus speculation. Even aside from the fact that there is no "right" or "wrong" for such details in 40k, as the fluff just does not aim for consistency on this level...

For example, one might well argue that a Planetary Governor is a military officer himself, given that he is the Commander-in-Chief of the Planetary Defence Forces. As such, if Holt would have shot him, it would be the execution of a military commander who failed in his duty to protect the world of Volistad.

Also, here's an interesting snippet from GW's Battlefield Cadia Apocalypse event:

Kravens Wrath:

Once commanded by Commissar Kraven D’lath of the 322nd, the Bastion is now known as Kravens Wrath since it fell to the invading forces of Chaos after every single man had been executed for cowardice. The Commissars whereabouts since its capture are unknown.

Hahaha! I'll be storing that one away for my 'things to do' in Black Crusade!

You've all *blam* been very *blam* naughty guards *blam* and I'm really *blam* sorry but *blam* its for your *blam* regiments own good *blam* that your *blam* cowardice *reload* is not allowed to *blam* spread to corrupt *blam* the others.

He's the reason bolter ammo is scarce enough that other Guardsmen can't have any

When it all comes down to it, though, I think that the really big problem is simply a player having the "authority" to ace another player. One supposes that, as soon as I hand Gd. Samuels his requisition lascannon, nothing is stopping him from splutching Gd. Erics on the spot because they (the players) are having a fight in real life, but when one character is described as it, and it CAN infringe on the fun other people might have (let's maybe accept that many of the average gamers are humorous a-holes, and they might want to act like amoral dolts, every so often. It's much like D&D, where we might have to occasionally "turn the paladin", so that his justice-filled eyes don't see the rogue do something underhanded, and feel a need to complain, rat him out, or serve punishment, because he MUST act within his alignment, or anger his deity, even if the player thought it was cute. That's part of why monks and palies are, for the most part, forbidden in my games.) it just becomes a pain.

Once a player feels they are entitled, and they do it, they make the rest of the group pissed. If they don't behave right, then they aren't doing their character justice, and they get pissed. It's a careful fence they choose to walk.

You've all *blam* been very *blam* naughty guards *blam* and I'm really *blam* sorry but *blam* its for your *blam* regiments own good *blam* that your *blam* cowardice *reload* is not allowed to *blam* spread to corrupt *blam* the others.

Yes, as I read that I just had this mental image of a Commissar who, one day, notices he's all alone in that fortress.

"Oops... "

Once a player feels they are entitled, and they do it, they make the rest of the group pissed. If they don't behave right, then they aren't doing their character justice, and they get pissed. It's a careful fence they choose to walk.

I think it's just something that should be kept in mind by all parties involved. Many players like to not take the game, its setting and their roles seriously, as they "just want to have fun" and just tend to mess around, doing silly things for the sake of enjoyment. Obviously, this doesn't seem like a viable mode of behaviour in a military setting (unless one is playing a parody inspired by the Cain novels or the Hot Shots movies, and everyone including the GM is "in" on it), so conflict is almost pre-programmed - usually with the poor GM who tries to show consequences without going too far, but in the case of Commissars (or paladins) this conflict can also come from within the party itself.

Honestly, I just see it as roleplaying potential. Either the players need to get a grip and play their characters like they are actually in the Guard and afraid of the consequences of their actions, or they need to look for other options that do not require breaking protocol even though they are perhaps more difficult or time-consuming, or they should come up with clever enough plans to make sure they're not caught with their hands in the cookie jar, or that their actions are actually understood and backed up by the Commissar/paladin. It takes effort, but depending on the cause and necessity it can be done.

I would rather see the fault with other players pushing it too far, than with the Commissar - or the paladin - who just plays according to their role. If the group is simply incapable of this level of seriousness, then, yes, perhaps it might be better to ban those classes from their campaign.

tl;dr: all that needs to be done is to make sure that neither player is hell-bent on pissing the other off - intentionally or unintentionally.

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 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?

If this is what caused Dark Heresy to not feature playable Inquisitors in the core rulebook in favour of a "council of acolytes", and drop GW's original Deathwatch organisation in favour of a "rotating squad leadership", then I think it was high time that the designers stopped compromising the atmosphere by pandering to those self-absorbed gamers who think that no other "mere player" deserves to lead their characters. Only War kind of forced this development due to the clearly military setting, but supposedly DH2 will now have Inquisitors from the start, too.

That being said, I'd say that the "problem" with Commissars isn't just the levels of authority, but that their role is very focused on enforcing discipline and making people "dance to their tune", whereas a Rogue Trader Captain can always just avoid a confrontation by shrugging their shoulders because they can be (and probably often are) of the companionable and charismatic sort who are rather forgiving of the shenanigans their favoured minions (the other PCs) may pull from time to time.

I suppose it goes to show that some players simply can't handle certain role-playing tasks. If your players are bringing out-of-game arguments into the game though, problems are going to crop up however you run things, and giving one of them military rank over the other is just a catalyst.

I has noticed this same Commisar/Paladin blowback issue from a group I used to play with years ago. I realised over time that these people were not humorous a**holes they were really just, well, a**holes! I stopped playing with them right about then I seem to remember. I agree with the above: If your players can't handle the hierarchy of a military setting then maybe they shouldn't be in one!

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?

It can (and, regrettably has) lead to arguments that I've seen - mostly if the Rogue Trader refuses to listen to other players. However, unlike a Commissar, things are much more blurred.

All the players are very powerful archetypes, most of whom are on the ship because they're working with the Lord-Captain, not for him.

A Rogue Trader represents the Dynasty, but a Navigator represents a Navis Nobilite family, whos holdings, wealth and general influence make most Rogue Trader Dynasties look like paupers, and is vital to the operation of the ship.

The Explorator (a) represents the Adeptus Mechanicus - one of the most powerful factions in the Imperium - and is the only man who can...you know... make the ship go .

A confessor represents the ecclesiarchy (same) and probably commands the loyalty (or at least fear) of the crew every bit as much as the Rogue Trader.

The Astra Telepathica are another extremely powerful organisation, and - more importantly - the Astropath is in a direct position to inform someone if he doesn't like something the Rogue Trader is up to. Equally, only he knows what message he actually sent. I've seen Astropaths smile and nod in an especially one-sided "planning discussion" and then (with the Seneschal's tacit approval) send instructions to minions which are almost the exact opposite of the Rogue Trader's "orders"...

The Arch-Militant, Seneschal and Void-Master don't have massive legal or financial authority, but sit between the Rogue Trader and his troops/financial resources/ship, so are perfectly capable of overriding him when he's blatantly wrong 'in the best interests of the Dynasty'. After all, there's a sizeable noble household outside the confines of the ship, and whilst the current warrant holder, the Rogue Trader isn't necessarily the head of house X.

The Arch-Militant, for example, doesn't have much direct authority. But he does tend to have a very large gun, which is an acceptible substitute in most debates. Besides which, if he's in charge of the Rogue Trader's armsmen contingent, he's the guy the Rogue Trader has to convince to get someone compelled to do something 'at gunpoint' - if he's a PC, he's perfectly capable of pointing out that the Rogue Trader is being a cretin and should listen .

If your players can't handle the hierarchy of a military setting then maybe they shouldn't be in one!

Agreed. Rogue Trader , or Ascension , may have a character who is distinctly 'in charge' (Warrant-Holder and Inquisitor respectively) but they are very much 'first amongst equals' of a group who are all above the law in their own way. Only War is no such thing - Kelly's Heroes -style Penal Units aside, the players are an integral part of a military and should act like it.

Just as an aside, whilst I don't 'ban' Commissars, I tend to reserve them for when the PCs are playing a 'command squad' - he can feel free to shoot platoon members outside the core PCs. I tend to advise them to stick with Terrify rather than Summary Execution .