Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hi there,

Small problem.

In the most recent session of our campaign, our resident Priests (one Tech-, one standard), were engaging with a group of particularly tough Servitors. Another member of the group, an Arbite, decided he'd be clever and fire his Trantor Semi-Auto into combat with them. Now, before the mission had begun their Inquisitor (Inquisitor Quintus Dyne) had given command of the mission to the Tech-Priest, and the Tech-Priest had already ordered a weapons hold as not to get anyone injured.

But the Arbite fired anyway and managed to score two head hits - one on the Tech-Priest, the other on the Priest. The combat played out, eventually the good guys were victorious, but before they moved on the Tech-Priest wanted to take the Arbite to task for his actions. This wasn't the player yelling at the other player for being a dick - they were doing it in character.

So they started talking, and the Arbite made it pretty clear that he wasn't going to follow the Tech-Priest's orders (more on this in a sec). They actually offered to make opposed Willpower Tests to see if one would back down. The Arbite won. Then the Priest got involved and stormed over, and he went up against the Arbite in defence of the Tech-Priest (which was cool, as these two had never seen eye to eye on anything yet), and the Priest won, so the Arbite backed down. The player playing the Arbite was happy to move on from there, stating that his character had been effectively put in his place by the two Priests and would follow them from this point forward.

So as far as RP'ing goes - great, very happy. They created and resolved a conflict with a combination of in character talking and using their stats and skills.

The problem I have is what I should do the Arbite for creating this problem in the first place. I find it very odd that he chose to have his Arbite ignore the authority of the Tech-Priest. I understand his character does not respect the Tech-Priest, or the Adeptus Mechanicus (and they had just been put on trial and sentenced to death in a AdMech kangaroo court... so it is in context I suppose) but the part I can't get over is that the Tech-Priest was put in charge by Dyne, their Inquisitor, and I would have thought that as an Arbite he would at least respect the authority of his master.

So how should I deal with this? The group won't actually meet up with Inquisitor Dyne until halfway through the next Act of the Campaign, where he steps in personally to investigate a Space Station they found whilst they head off to extract a very important Astropath from the hands their new enemies, but in that brief window where they meet - what would Dyne do?

Part of me wants to line them all up (there are 5 of them, including a Guardsman and a Noble-Born Psyker), and then just take the Arbite's Trantor and shoot him in the leg with it, reminding him (and everyone watching) that had it been me/Dyne in charge, the Arbite's disrespect and disobedience would have resulted in him being shot in the head.

But I'm sure there is a 'better' way, so if anyone has any ideas - just let me know.

If it were up to my inquisitor/me (Inquisitor Roeth, for my soon-to-be first campaign), I'd take the Arbite's gun and blast his head off. Alcolytes listen to their masters or they pay the price for it. But again, that's just me

Just do what you think would make the campaign more fun. Would it add to the excitement by killing the Arbite, just shooting his leg like you want, or just giving him a warning? Just go with what you want. After all, you are the Game Master

I like your idea, H.B.M.C.

It is certainly in character enough, painful enough, but also not life ending, so the point will get across, right?

Sounds like fun!

Paradoxically, your PC acted a bit OOC in trying to RP. An Arbitrator would look past his distaste for the TechPriest to the authority of the Inquisitor. Now he (not you, GM H.B.M.C.) must retcon some rationalization into said insult to Dyne. An acolyte who makes stupid decisions, after all, deserves to die either as an immediate result of his stupidity or slightly more indirectly at the hand of his disappointed master. So--unforgivable stupidity aside--why would an Arbitrator disregard any iota of Inquisitorial authority? The DH core entry on Arbitrators closes with the idea that a Judge will turn on an Inquisitor that he believes has violated Imperial Law. This is obviously a tricky situation given that Inquisitors have a fuzzy relationship with Imperial law and hierarchy, sometimes trumping all and sometimes having to wheedle and connive. More to the point, how is putting the TechPriest in charge a crime? I can't see (from the info you've given) a reasonable explanation along these lines. In fact, I think this Arbitrator must end up being executed. And the player should understand that. It's the GrimDark, after all.

But . . .

There are all sorts of Inquisitorial personalities (I prefer the seemingly schizophrenic myself) and positions (for me: staunch monodominant), as you know. Unlike Arbitrators, Inquisitors come in every psychological and ideological size and color. Can you tell us a little more about Dyne? For example, if Dyne is an Amalathian with a pedagogical bent he might hack off a few of the Arbitrator's fleshy limbs and have them replaced with augemtic ones--this to encourage meditation on worship of the Emperor in his aspect of Omnissiah. If Dyne also has a sadistic streak, he could similarly have the Arbitrator's heart cut out and replaced with a augemtic that doubled as a sort of internal penitential cilice, generating a constant low-level pain. Maybe even make it a bomb and give the Techpriest the trigger. The Techpriest's orders? "Instruct the Arbitrator in the veneration of the Machine Spirits until he learns proper respect for the Union of Mars and Terra. If, in your estimation, he cannot fathom the mysteries of our shared faith in this life then by all means send him along to the Emperor for further insight."

It really all depends on Dyne.

remind me never to play DH with any of you sadistic gits!


If an NPC deliberately killed or injured my character for disobeying an order I have to say I'd probably walk out of the session. Fair enough, if there had been ample warning thats different but as a 'first offence' so to speak, it's more than a little harsh.

there are other ways to warn a player about things that might potentially be OOC or detrimental to the session than simply shooting/killing the character.

My advice would be a kind of 'last warning' situation. A non-physical punishment that restricts the player somewhat and will put him off disobeying orders again.

Sadistic? This lot? You should see the responses I've received in the thread I made over on the FFG forums. Far more bloodthirsty.

And it wasn't that he intentionally shot his allies, he just disregarded an order not to shoot into combat, shot anyway, epic failed the roll and hit both his allies rather than the target.

If this was D&D, I would be hesitant to punish by interfering with character development. But I think part of DH is the feeling of constant vulnerability to forces that shape you without your consent. An Inquisitor who lets this slide . . . I just don't see it as true to the setting.

I can't wait to hear what Inquisitor Dyne DOES end up doing!

Maybe you can have something that doesn't involve the Inquisitor at all. Say the Tech-Priest has the option to save the Arbite's life (or at least you can make it seem that way) and after it is resolved they agree never to mention the whole thing to Dyne. That could bring up some interesting subtext if the other priest DOES decide to tell him. Or this could be the spark to build some inner-party conflict between the Arbite and the Priest(s) (with the kangaroo court being another straw on the camel's back), and you could find a way to temp the Arbite into some more "illegal" anti-mechanicus activities.

If you want to punish the Arbite, do it in-game during a mission, not as a Inquisitional Deus ex Machina. That's my suggestion at least.

I don't think the Inquisitor appearing (on schedule according to H.B.M.C.'s plot, mind you) and acting like an Inquisitor is really a"deus ex machina" solution. Frankly, forcing the story to work as TPC just suggested seems heavier-handed (i.e., ends up interfering with more character choices) to me than having an NPC who is arguably central to the setting act appropriately when he meets the PCs. It is a good point that the PCs may work out a deal whereby no one mentions this indiscretion to Dyne. Again, depending on Dyne's personality this may be how he prefers it. Or, if he's a paranoid micromanager, it may get everyone involved into hot water.

So what ever happened with this?

I haven't forgotten y'all - and I thank you for all of your suggestions.

As for what has happened? Well... nothing yet!

We haven't reached that part of the campaign (still have the rest of Act III and the first half of Act IV to go). I haven't even had a chance to speak to the player in question about why he chose that path of his character.

But I'll be keeping everything said here in mind.

Well I think I've figured it out. The 'shoot him in the leg' thing still seems appealing, but I've come up with a better way to do it.

Details?

Sadly I think that some of my players might read ahead and find out plot details, like how at the start of the next Act they'll be fighting off Bloodletters led by a Nurgle-possessed Hello Kitty toy*, so I am loath to give away details until after the event has transpired.

On a side note, one of my players came to me with the idea of incorporating a roll on the Psychic Phenomena/Perils of the Warp table that he got. He got the one where the character becomes unstuck in time and vanishes for a short time. He thought it would be cool if he vanished somewhere, maybe even meeting himself in the future for a brief period of time, and we've incorporated it into the narrative of the story, so that his journey back to the future will help them later down the line.


*That's not really going to happen.

Well, consider me vicariously enjoying their suspenseful wait!

Sounds cool about the Warp phenomenon. You'll have to make him play it twice, of course, getting everything exactly right elsewise you've got a time-paradox on your hands. And by "your hands," I mean do something else mean to your PCs.

Sounds like a fun Campaign. If possible I'd be holding the threat of sending the arbitrator off to be turned into a servitor over him if I was running as the inquisitor. .