Again, they already risk that without going radical (unless I simply forbid it). Death is not a deterrent The puritans need something that only they can use, or aquire or some extra safeguard.

Again, they already risk that without going radical (unless I simply forbid it). Death is not a deterrent The puritans need something that only they can use, or aquire or some extra safeguard.

My suggestion: go the World of Darkness route: make some slow games, with a lot of investigation and many NPCs for them to get involved with.

As soon as they have a lot of emocional attachment to them, give your players a choice to go radical, by sacrificing the ones they love.

Yeah, my players love it when I do that.

I'm not certain that puritans need to be given items that have a power level equal to radical items. On the one road lies damnation with the potential to become a demon prince for all eternity; on the other road lies the probability of being a minor and temporary savior of a small segment of space. Part of the lure of chaos and xenos is the promise of easy power. Being a puritan wouldn't be as cool if it didn't mean being forced to take certain sacrifices.

If a group goes radical enough, it might also be fun to watch as puritan forces start making the achievement of a particular objective more difficult.

I quite enjoy books like Blood of Martyrs and Demon Hunters that give puritans their own toys and tools to use in the fight against Chaos and radicalism, but I'm not of the opinion that they have to be of the same power level. Things like a reduction of sanity and lower odds of losing control of one's own character I should think might be sufficient enough reward.

That said, the old background where a character had to pass a willpower test or be forced to make the Sign of the Aquila was downright hilarious.

I'm not talking about equal power, radicals do get in alot of trouble being what they are but when dying is not only likely but inevitable there needs to be a counterbalance. As I see it radicals should get better items, if they aren't better then the run of the mill why use it at all when it has debilitating drawbacks? I'm merely advocating puritans get SOMETHING for being puritan. Possibly in the other direction, warding against the horrors they face rather then increasing their abilitiy to obliterate it.

Faith shall be thine shield.

Personally, I'd say it should depend on just how puritan you are ... which inevitably means that the vast majority of people in 40k do not get any such benefits at all, just because they also don't suffer any of the (significant, in terms of "subtlety") drawbacks associated with zealously sticking to some religious creed like the monastic Black Templars or Adepta Sororitas. I understand that limiting such bonuses to the true extremists seems to be a rather unpopular interpretation, however, both by the current game designers as well as the majority of players?

That being said, I also think that Puritans generally have an advantage in there being fewer people they cannot turn their backs to. Radicalism may grant you more power, but ultimately you start working against a large number of potential additional enemies. Even more than the usual internecine rivalry the average Inquisitor already has to deal with by default.

If this is not being perceived as an advantage, it sounds like it's not being made enough of a dis advantage to the Radicals in question.

nono, my visious would be this: Either you're "normal", radical or puritan. All in varying degrees. Normals are..well, normal. Radicals go to the extremes, easily giving up their own humanity in the hope of saving the Imperium at large. The end justifies the means. You'll shine twice as bright but only half as long.

Puritans will distain stooping to do what they consider heinous or immoral, this denying themselves great tools in their fight against the foes of the imperium. You could say the normals do the same, but to a lesser degree. My point is just this: Every time my players has had the option to go radical..they have. They see it as an upgrade. Granted, one that might kill them but they might die anyway and the radical xenos gear might even save them many times.

Maybe there ahould even be a kind of Purity Track - similar to Subtlety and Influence.

It measures how true you've been to doctrin, or how radical you have become. This is more a political instrument and might influence your contacts and choice of friends. This reputation can rise through puritan deeds, and may decrease with the use of xenos weapons and alike. If you ever reach 0, you will be hunted and dont have an official inquisitorial rank anymore.

Maybe there ahould even be a kind of Purity Track - similar to Subtlety and Influence.

Funny you should mention this - I've actually been working on a houserule that has "Purity Points" as the polar opposite of Corruption Points, and which serve as both a buffer against CP (any CP incurred will first subtract PP until you reach the "normal level" of 0 CP), as well as governing the use of certain willpower-based abilities such as, say, SoB-specific Acts of Faith (every 10 PP = 1 AoF per day or session, simultaneously "outsourcing" this feature away from Fate Points).

Think of it as the Corruption Track being expanded to the other side, with 0 remaining the normal value, but with certain characters (depending on their origin, such as a Schola Progenium upbringing) starting with a set value of Purity. Needless to say, much like with Corruption Points it could also be possible to accrue additional Purity depending on a character's actions/behaviour. I've been pondering over a small variety of "general" abilities that could be linked to that attribute ("Deny The Witch" springs to mind), as well as specialised ones that depend on a character's background and/or active schooling (specific to an organisation or tutelage).

On a sidenote, this part of my little project was the reason for why I've been asking how much Corruption gain is normal in the average DH campaign.

Maybe there should even be a kind of Purity Track - similar to Subtlety and Influence.

Corruption maybe? It is pretty much about the same thing: damnation. When you go radical you gain Corruption anyway, so why not just use Corruption to track the group's "radicality"?

Maybe there should even be a kind of Purity Track - similar to Subtlety and Influence.

Corruption maybe? It is pretty much about the same thing: damnation. When you go radical you gain Corruption anyway, so why not just use Corruption to track the group's "radicality"?

This I don't like, and might not work well in all instances.

On one hand it's a great way of showing how the PC's get more desperate the more horrors they encounter and start to feel the problems stacking up, thus taking desperate measures.

However, it will do a few things I don't like. One, it takes away choice in what kind of character they have from the player as they're forced to go radical eventually and psychers are especially vulnerable. I don't like telling my players "your characters are like this and that". That's why, whenever there's a roll for something that tells you how your character is i tell them to pick the stats, then a fluff you one they like. No one should have to play either puritan or radical based on unavoidable game mechanics. And if you have to ignore/change a rule then it's a bad rule.

^I mean, there is no need for an additional rule that separates Puritans and Radicals. If you want to know if your character is Radical or not then just check his Corruption track.

However, it will do a few things I don't like. One, it takes away choice in what kind of character they have from the player as they're forced to go radical eventually and psychers are especially vulnerable.

I'd say this depends on how much Corruption they actually rack up. There should be no perceived "need" to go Radical - at least not before you actually reach a certain threshold. The thread I linked above was invaluable for me to gauge this number. If you have a player with, say, 40 or 50 CP, then it's clear that the character did not pay enough attention to actively avoid this effect ... and yes, this may well be penalised by pushing him or her towards Radicalism, with all bells and whistles attached, even if the player did not display active interest in doing so (which would display a dangerous disconnect between the player's apparent goals and the character's actual behaviour).

I see it working much like the Dark Side of the Force. Or a perpetuum mobile that starts spinning once you've tipped that scale sufficiently far to the side, knocking the character off-balance and setting them on a track of damnation ... not that it necessarily must end in their ruin, mind you - at least from their perspective.

That's the insidious thing about Corruption, after all. Not always is it the obvious power-grab with a daemon offering a pact for some powerful weapon. Sometimes, it just means taking the easier way out, time and time again, or even just the character's own moon-sized ego twisting their perception of the greater picture and causing them to get bogged up in unnecessary rivalries detracting them from their actual job (*coughPrimarchscough*).

However, it will do a few things I don't like. One, it takes away choice in what kind of character they have from the player as they're forced to go radical eventually and psychers are especially vulnerable.

I'd say this depends on how much Corruption they actually rack up. There should be no perceived "need" to go Radical - at least not before you actually reach a certain threshold. The thread I linked above was invaluable for me to gauge this number. If you have a player with, say, 40 or 50 CP, then it's clear that the character did not pay enough attention to actively avoid this effect ... and yes, this may well be penalised by pushing him or her towards Radicalism, with all bells and whistles attached, even if the player did not display active interest in doing so (which would display a dangerous disconnect between the player's apparent goals and the character's actual behaviour).

I see it working much like the Dark Side of the Force. Or a perpetuum mobile that starts spinning once you've tipped that scale sufficiently far to the side, knocking the character off-balance and setting them on a track of damnation ... not that it necessarily must end in their ruin, mind you - at least from their perspective.

That's the insidious thing about Corruption, after all. Not always is it the obvious power-grab with a daemon offering a pact for some powerful weapon. Sometimes, it just means taking the easier way out, time and time again, or even just the character's own moon-sized ego twisting their perception of the greater picture and causing them to get bogged up in unnecessary rivalries detracting them from their actual job (*coughPrimarchscough*).

Lynata, I would be highly interested to see how this House Rule turns out. I was thinking of a similar mechanic. I was also thinking of a special talent (Faith) to grant Puritan characters, another talent to grant to Radicals and also a secret talent to grant those that pursue and adhere to the Emperor's original philosophy which could be uncovered slowly but surely in a roundabout way. It will be sort of a mystery throughout the campaign with the characters not really knowing immediately where this philosophy came from since it will be uncovered from some ruins. Ah, the difficult choices that will have to be made

Let me remind you that even the most Puritan Inquisitor may receive scores of Corruption points without ever doing one misdeed.

Many daemons have attacks that inflict corruption points and even stepping into some unhallowed places may give corruption points to those inside.

Radicalism and Puritanism are chains of thought and philosophy, and are very subjective.

As an example, there are Puritan Inquisitors that defend lobotomising Psykers and using them as Psy-servitors. Ignoring the points of Insanity required to consider this a reasonable course of action, servo-psykers are not immune to the perils of the Warp, and still in a position to give corruption points to those close to them.

Both Puritan and Radical are extremes and neither are the actual truth of things. As a GM, I would consider both equally as "corrupting" to the character as it makes them single minded and without the ability to be truly objective about what is going on.

The 40k line has an interesting idea of what is good and evil. Being a Puritan can ultimately be just as "evil" as being a Radical. The problem with the Imperium is that it exists at these extremes without much room for the more tolerant shade of gray.

Let me remind you that even the most Puritan Inquisitor may receive scores of Corruption points without ever doing one misdeed.

Many daemons have attacks that inflict corruption points and even stepping into some unhallowed places may give corruption points to those inside.

Radicalism and Puritanism are chains of thought and philosophy, and are very subjective.

As an example, there are Puritan Inquisitors that defend lobotomising Psykers and using them as Psy-servitors. Ignoring the points of Insanity required to consider this a reasonable course of action, servo-psykers are not immune to the perils of the Warp, and still in a position to give corruption points to those close to them.

Good point on the corruption- but if I'm correct there were some (admittedly harsh) ways to help remove corruption on the player's end? I still need to look back in the books to see where those mechanisms exist. Regardless- Blood of Martyrs had some pretty awesome acts of faith that a character could tap in to. Hopefully that sort of thing carries over to this edition, if only to give players the option of playing a Famulous Protoge.

I seem to recall in White Dwarf (probably more than a decade ago) when Games Workshop mentioned that older inquisitors had a tendency toward pragmatism/radicalism, while the youth tended toward puritanism. Perhaps that's simply because of the exposure to corruption and the increased instances where compromise is deemed a viable solution?

Some of the most good intentioned of people turn out to be the most evil. I'm beginning to think that a campaign might be in order that views puritanism and radicalism from a different point of view. Whether people call themselves Puritan or Radical, the true Puritan sticks to the greater good that the Emperor ACTUALLY taught while the true Radical is willing to deviate from this path.

Makes me think that 40k society has been living in an illusion as to what makes a true Puritan or a Radical.

I seem to recall in White Dwarf (probably more than a decade ago) when Games Workshop mentioned that older inquisitors had a tendency toward pragmatism/radicalism, while the youth tended toward puritanism.

Yeah, that was when they were promoting the Inquisitor game. That progression was illustrated in the Eisenhorn novels, where the main character starts out as a staunch Puritan, and over the course of years is forced to become less ideological and more pragmatic in order to counter a massive threat. By the last book in the trilogy Eisenhorn is dumbstuck to learn that he is now considered a Radical, since he considered all of his decisions to be the 'right' ones to divert disaster.

Having read this I just want to say its important to remember that not all radicals are 'on the path to damnation' any more than a monodominant might be. Some of the tenants of radicalism could just be wanting a revival of technology, or seeing a move away from the Imperial Creed as being beneficial for the Imperium (something the living emperor was quite adamant about).

In contrast the most violent game of DH I have ever played was with a group comprised entirely of hard-line puritans who burnt witches and punished heretics with branding irons or death. It's hardly a road to salvation. Just a different kind of fanaticism.

Having read this I just want to say its important to remember that not all radicals are 'on the path to damnation' any more than a monodominant might be. Some of the tenants of radicalism could just be wanting a revival of technology, or seeing a move away from the Imperial Creed as being beneficial for the Imperium (something the living emperor was quite adamant about).

In contract the most violent game of DH I have ever played was with a group comprised entirely of hard-line puritans who burnt witches and punished heretics with branding irons or death. It's hardly a road to salvation. Just a different kind of fanaticism.

Well, I think you just summarized it perfectly!

or seeing a move away from the Imperial Creed as being beneficial for the Imperium (something the living emperor was quite adamant about)

Only in some Black Library novels.

I agree with your sentiment, however!

Idea of Ordo's centred books is great but I would love to see book showing life on different planets. Something about common citizens and their lifes. I was always encountering problems with cities and investigations within them. There is almost zero lore about how people live in Empire. Yes, I know that it is different on every planet but some general info would be nice.

Difference between puritans and radicals is in their ideologies not their corruption points. You can have radical with 0 CP. It's just faster road to get them. Giving mechanics to show differences is just wrong. It's all about how players see their character and how they play them. It's about their thouhgts and actions. Making Mass Effect style morality to check who is puritan and who is radical is...just no.

Xenos in DH? Maybe in Ascension lvl game but not using basic PCs. You are acoltye of inquisition, you are investigator, you usually work within society. There is no place for xenos there. In inquisitorial routine you can have how many xenos you want but you won't let them walk between common citizens.

-- I would love to see book showing life on different planets. Something about common citizens and their lifes. I was always encountering problems with cities and investigations within them. There is almost zero lore about how people live in Empire. Yes, I know that it is different on every planet but some general info would be nice.

Yeah, I think that's a consistent flaw in the WH40KRP line: it assumes that everyone is already well-versed in 40K lore, and doesn't provide enough of a 'base' for people new to the setting. I remember a thread quite a while back which pointed out that, although DH was all about rooting out heresy, no definition of what constitutes 'heresy' in the 40Kverse is provided! I'd like to see DH2 be more 'self-contained' to make it more accessible to newcomers. I realize that's a tall order, given the complexity of the setting, but FFG should at least try to meet that goal...

-- I would love to see book showing life on different planets. Something about common citizens and their lifes. I was always encountering problems with cities and investigations within them. There is almost zero lore about how people live in Empire. Yes, I know that it is different on every planet but some general info would be nice.

Yeah, I think that's a consistent flaw in the WH40KRP line: it assumes that everyone is already well-versed in 40K lore, and doesn't provide enough of a 'base' for people new to the setting. I remember a thread quite a while back which pointed out that, although DH was all about rooting out heresy, no definition of what constitutes 'heresy' in the 40Kverse is provided! I'd like to see DH2 be more 'self-contained' to make it more accessible to newcomers. I realize that's a tall order, given the complexity of the setting, but FFG should at least try to meet that goal...

As Lynata has pointed out many times, The interpretation of 40k background material is intentionally vague. This is intended so everyone's little corner of the universe is a bit different. While the ecclesiarchy might have some pretty petty ideas about what constitutes heresy, The =][= has a somewhat broader perspective. The vast differences of cultures in the Imperium mean that Inquisitors must focus on actual threats to humanity rather than theological or philosophical differences. This is probably why the Inquisition tolerates Radicalism or even monodominant puritanism. They must concentrate more on results than individual methods. Unfortunately for the players, the system tends to have a more Black and white interpretation: Contact and interaction with the warp or warp spawned beasts = corruption. advanced stages of insanity also translate to corruption. Additionally, Contact with certain Xenos such as enslavers or Dark Eldar can also lead to corruption.

The biggest threat of radicalism is the possibility of your character changing sides involuntarily. Basically; you hit 100cp you are done. you have essentially just become a Black crusade character. (In fact, the rules in BC say EXACTLY this!)

I have always basically interpreted Corruption as turning away from the good of humanity (Even if the player doesn't think that's what they are doing). Thus, use of warp weapons, Pacts with Daemons and such are all harmful in some small (or not so small) way to the cause of humanity. Additionally, Certain interactions with Xenos and forbidden texts are can have the same results. The player may well believe that the potential gains outweigh the risks (And the Irony is; they might even be right!), but, they have still started down a VERY slippery road that ends in damnation! Chaos plays the long game and all to often is willing to wait for their inevitable victory as your rising star Inquisitor embarks on his own Black crusade!