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.

Melissia wrote:
I wouldn't say they're a-holes. Ruthless? Sure, most commissars are ruthless. But they do what they do for a reason, and that reason is to ensure discipline in an army unit-- most of them don't do it just for the "fun" of it. Overdoing discipline gives bad results, too, and I think most Commissars know this. Being overly harsh (IE summary execution of a tenth of a regiment) is only for the most extreme of situations (Cain actually considered doing that to the valhallans when he first met them, and said that in that case it was certainly justified even in his view, but it didn't fit his reputation so he didn't go with it)

Power corrupts. Absolute power turns you into an a-hole

Fair point, however I think it more do with no fear of retaliation. Fear of retaliation keeps people in line.

"Abuse of power" is a phrase that assumes someone is actually stepping outside the limits of their power and is claiming it actually lies within their power.

Commissars, as per their job description, cannot do this. Their power doesn't have a limit, just triggers. Even the most junior commissar could execute a lord general if he deemed he had failed in his duty.

In theory yes but said Junior Commissat would probably face charges in front of a Tribunial of his peers, and if found wanting be executed himself.

Only if it was deemed improper. If the general was wanting there is nothing that would happen.

It would depend - if the Lord General in question was clearly tainted and about to bring a whole sub-sector over to Chaos with him, that Junior Commissar would have a bright future. Some political pressure might be brought to bear against him/her, but there would be enough superiors sticking up for him to avoid much trouble.

If, on the other hand, the execution was over a less severe failing, while it might be technically within the Junior Commissar's power... it would cause a serious uproar. I imagine it's like the Inquisition. The Commissariat polices itself; while their authority is technically unlimited in eliminating corruption and incompetence within the Guard, they will ruthlessly eliminate corruption and incompetence within their own ranks just as quickly. A dangerously reckless junior member who clearly cannot exercise their power with any discretion would be answering to a tribunal pretty quickly.

SpankHammer III wrote:[
Fair point, however I think it more do with no fear of retaliation. Fear of retaliation keeps people in line.

Have you ever been pulled over by a bad cop? One of those abusive ones who think they are above the law because they have a badge? Now imagine putting a gun in that cop's hand and giving him the authority to shoot you without explanation. Now give him megalomania. That's a bad commissar. It's going to take more than the fear of retaliation to give him pause to exercise his power, given to him by the state. Heck, fear of retaliation doesn't keep criminals from doings things they shouldn't be doing.

SpankHammer III wrote:
IIRC Hark is quite trigger happy when he first joins the ghost and guant has to reign him in and flat out tells him he's not allowed to execute people without his say so.

IMO Guant's policy not executing people isn't because he is cuddley it's based on his guilt for tanith dying, there are several cases in the book of him executing people. IIRC he shoots several soldiers for stealing medical supplies and beating up Dorden. He is forced to extend the policy to the vervunhive members as to do otherwise would cause splits in the regiment.

Yeah Hark was, he was about to summary execute the tanith for running away from a baneblade, you know light infatry running away from a super heavy, quite normal IMO.

Gaunt isnt shamed by guilt about tanith, he was that way with the Irkans too (notsure I got the name right). He was respected and liked with that unit too. Gaunt is what we could call a fair man. He is following the Slaydo's way of thinking which is morale is better entertained by example then summary executions. The main reason for which he is always on the frontlines with his troops and the main reason for which he is respected by 99,99% of the regiment. He will however use his power in extreme cases like with Costin (where he was stopped by Dorden, , and others)

CuddlySquig wrote:Power corrupts. Absolute power turns you into an a-hole.

They don't have absolute power. They have power to act in accordance with the law. This includes them having to quote certain laws in order to justify their actions.

Sure, they're powerful, but they do not have absolute power, and their power comes with a LOT of responsibility. If they are derelict in their duty, they can be killed or worse. Either by having an "accident", or by having a tribunal called.

They're still A-holes though.

The job description demands it

No, an donkey-cave would do it just for the fun of it. Commissars do it because it's necessary.

Slim distinction for the guy with the hole in his head, and i'm sure that some commisars enjoy their work a tad too much

Commissars are given instructions, guidelines and indoctrination into what they are to do and what they are to look out for. They are, however, given latitude in how they interpret and carry out those orders. It's simply a requirement because the upper levels cannot micromanage things at the tip of the spear, so they have to delegate to at least some degree. And that means each Commissar is going to approach his task differently. a few are going to be true heroes and leaders: the Gaunts, the Yarricks, the Cains. They're the ones who can use overwhelming charisma and intelligence and even compassion as tools to motivate and lead to victory. They're lucky in that they have to rarely, if ever threaten or carry out summary execution.

On the far end you will have a variable number who simply are too rigid, uncreative, stupid, or fanatical to make good commissars. They lack the intelligence, the intuition, the flexibility to observe and understand and figure out how to best run the regiment - they have to fall back on strict letters of the law and infllexible itnerpretations of things. Or they may regard everything as a potential breach of the rules. For them there is little or no ability to inspire - their only possible tool is fear, and punishment (including summary execution) are the only tools they have. These are the sorts that piss off more independently minded (and elite ) regiments like Catachans, and the type who will also get fragged.

In between there you have a wide spectrum of different approaches and philosophies, and they'll interpret and apply their judgement and tools in different ways. I personally think most will knowingly limit their use of punishment and summary execution, because constant use of it not only creates conflict (resentment and hate towards the officers and the Commissar himself) but it can degrade the impact of that tool when you truly need it. I mean if the troops know that things are serious enough that he has to threaten summary execution, then they may know they really have to pull it together and give their all. And you don't want to break your men's spirits either - they'll be ruined as soldiers.

Rather the commissars there will try to set an example, to impress the hell out of the troops, to gain their respect, their awe, and even a little fear of what they represent and what they can do. Respect is the greatest and most effective tool in the Commissars arsenal, but it is perhaps the one the hardest to use and the one most prone to misuse, and it can do harm if it is misused as well (You don't want to be too soft so the troops like you either - that undermines your authority and the authority of the commanders.)

Melissia wrote:

Harriticus wrote:I get the impression that most Commissars are ruthless donkey-caves who treat their troops as cannon fodder while guys like Yarrick and Cain are the exceptions.

I wouldn't say they're a-holes. Ruthless? Sure, most commissars are ruthless. But they do what they do for a reason, and that reason is to ensure discipline in an army unit-- most of them don't do it just for the "fun" of it. Overdoing discipline gives bad results, too, and I think most Commissars know this. Being overly harsh (IE summary execution of a tenth of a regiment) is only for the most extreme of situations (Cain actually considered doing that to the valhallans when he first met them, and said that in that case it was certainly justified even in his view, but it didn't fit his reputation so he didn't go with it)

I think the term you are looking for is "Decimation" or "Decimate." It is oft used incorrectly, as it refers most accurately to the practice of punishing a Roman Legion by killing one out of every ten men (Deca=10, Deci=.1). In Cain's case he had two disparate, segregated regiments turning to homocide as their rivalries peaked. When he walked into that mess hall in the middle of a full scale riot and nonchalantly started ordering people to get mops rather than just start shooting was the very moment I fell in love with that character, (piss running down his legs the whole time and everything.)

The Cain books, aside from being very entertaining, have excellent insight into the commisariat, as Cain bluntly points out how different from the others he is (and how eagerly he uses his position for personal gain.)

YOU THINK THAT'S BAD once a single comisar killed more imperial guard than my librarian

Evil donkey commisar indeed