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.

Is there any material on the actual methods of interrogation or testimony retrieval that Inquisitors use or have access to?
I was expecting to find a little in the Dark Heresy RPG, but unless I'm missing it, the general focus seems to be on hierarchy structure and who may call upon who(m?).

I'm particularly curious if things like truth serum or less-damaging techniques are bothered with. I realise each inquisitor operates how they very well please, and that many don't prioritise wellbeing of a suspect over information.. But from a GM point of view, giving a player a toolbox of methods is always welcome.

Is there such thing as witness testomony? Or even witnesses? Am I thinking in terms to close to our own police structure to translate over to 40K?

I asked my friends but the general response was, "...being crap-the-bed scared of inquisition."

I'm not sure about the Inquisition specifically but I assume they have access to neat toys similar to what the Interrogator-Chaplains of the Dark Angels use. The Blades of Reason cause intense pain but don't kill so they can be used almost indefinitely.

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Blades_of_Reason

Inquisitors aren't selected for stupidity. They'll use whatever methods work. They certainly know that torture can be counterproductive - some subjects will tell you anything you want to hear just to make it stop.

And ofc, in a big case you can't waste an Inquisitor's time on every person involved. Flunkies can be interrogated by the local police, then the Inquisitor checks the reports for anything suspicious enough to warrant extra attention. That would include witness testimony, yes.

We do know the Inquisition has nine stages of interrogation if they have time to be formal and follow proper procedure; stage one is the Inquisitor just asking the questions calmly (most people break here, the horror stories about the Inquisition are well-founded), stage two is the Inquisitor describing stages three through nine in great detail. They've always left the rest vague, simply because the reader's imagination is a lot better at scaring the reader than descriptions of tortures.

Thanks for the responses, I am sorry if my initial question is a bit vague!

One example of why I'm curious: I will be allowing two players to investigate an incident as acolytes/inquisitors and would like to offer them a moral spectrum of techniques without killing / destroying the NPC.

In our courts, confession and testimony are not always enough to legally prove something. In 40K, is that a concern? Are there "verified" methods for providing testimony in cases where it becomes a larger issue than one inquisitor's personal judgement?
I refer to things like polygraphs these days, controversy about accuracy aside.

Legal proof is pretty irrelevant to folks who carry around the right to blow up planets in their pockets. An Inquisitor just has to be able to justify his actions to higher-ups within the Inquisition, there aren't really any hard-and-fast rules or good checks and balances in place.

There is no such thing as 'a larger issue than one inquisitor's personal judgement'.
The Inquisition is above everyone but the Emperor,they don't need to provide prove should they find it useless.
Confessions and testimonies only serve to give the Inquisitor a better idea of the situation,whether getting anything useful is relevant is up to the Inquisitor himself.

That said,rash Inquisitors are hunted down by their fellows so for major actions (orbital bombardment of imperial worlds for example) there would need to be sufficient proof.
For smaller (on their scale) actions like purging several thousands of suspected heretics,little proof is needed.

I suspected not.

Whilst it's good storytelling to not go into detail, it becomes a little difficult to fudge this area when players get hands-on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What about inquisitors investigating one another? Is there any need to justify those actions?

That's why you got to let their imaginations do the work. Give your players someone obstinate and see what they do with them. The story will be able to carry on regardless of the specific techniques as long as it has meaning to the players and consequences.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

What about inquisitors investigating one another? Is there any need to justify those actions?

That's where things get delicate and fussy, mostly because the Inquisition is entirely self-policing. There's a lot of politics to that part, so it boils down to who can convince the next guy up the chain of command that their interpretation of events is correct; the Inquisition is a lot less codified/more case-by-case than any IRL legal system.

Oh aye, I'm not going to hand-hold them, but one player has little or no 40K experience, and the other is a bit warped, so as I said, a basic toolbox of things at their disposal would be useful.
In the same way that your character has a sword, it doesn't mean they aren't allowed to pick up a chisel.

I'm co-writing a scenario where DH overlaps Only War and the players will be investigating their own OW group.
It's a careful arrangement of pacing, but also an exercise in not destroying the NPC before I hand over their own characters to answer further questions.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

What about inquisitors investigating one another? Is there any need to justify those actions?

It is not necessary to have an excuse (like the accused is possibly a closet heretic or the inquisitor's gone too far from the "right path", which as you know is also an issue of debate), but at least the accuser has to have a reason (even it's just that the accuser simply doesn't like the accused).

Usually the inquisitor will have to put out some evidence to convince the other inquisitors (normally the local Inquisitorial conclave or the other inquisitors in the immediate area of the accused inquisitor), to gain support to put pressure on said inquisitor; if the investigation is done with excommunicating an Inquisitor in mind, a the accuser would (usually, eh, usually) need an Inquisitorial conclave the carry out the edict, as it were:

Inquisitorial conclaves are often the venue for declaring excommunications and, in extreme circumstances, even a fellow Inquisitor can be so branded. Excommunication is never done lightly,
but is a principal weapon of the Inquisition and one of the ways its authority can be used to protect the Imperium. - Codex: Inquisition. "Excommunicated Traitors". 6th Edition. digital

. One would assume if the investigation is done without excommunicating in mind, it would be done to monitor a (in the investigator's opinion) potentially troublesome individuals, like powerful inquisitors whom (he/she thinks) is on the verge of turning rogue. Although I suppose an Inquisitor could simply have a crush on another, and wants to find out where to take said inquisitor on a date.

Edit: Inquisitor: The Thorians have a lot of background info on how the inquisition operates, how it's structured (or rather, no at all structured), in depth exploration of the issue of Puritans and Radicals, the inter-conflicts amongst the holders of different philosophies of the Inquistion (Thorians, for example, did not to well with the Pro-Ministorum crowd, despite being considered largely Puritan, because the whole resurrecting the Emperor thing).

However the background book was written for the Inquisitor RPG game, which has since been discontinued in effect; the rulebooks and the Inquisitor: Thorians have since become unavailable from the Games-Workshop website. It used to be free under the specialised game section. The Current Codex: Inquisition have a lot of the info found in the book removed, making some of the content from the background book canonically ambiguous.

NPC is questioned, the parts he describes will boot up the Only War game and run the sections of that story for the players. Running the two systems parallel in this way is key to the end result- kill the NPC and they will have a harder time uncovering the true story. Play badly and screw up the IG section and they will also affect the current outcome.

So giving the players a reason in-character to be moderate or less damaging is important. I dislike the things we know out of game tempering in-character choices.

Part of that is going to be punishments on the player for acting too rashly. For example, since you're weaving these two games together, I could see something like this scenario going down:

Your Inquisitors are grilling this NPC for information and one of them decides to get a little more than hands-on with the questioning and actually renders the NPC unconscious or insensible for a time.

In your Only War game, have this insensibility have an effect. Since the NPC was not able to describe events leading up to the next part of the Only War game, the squad is just dumped into a middle of a fight. When the players are shocked by this, you make it clear that they are denying themselves information.

Well, any Inquisitor who is a psyker can conduct mental probes and torture. And any who aren't will know where to go for such individuals to aid in their work.

As for more physical techniques, just look up historical methods of interrogation.

 curran12 wrote:
Part of that is going to be punishments on the player for acting too rashly. For example, since you're weaving these two games together, I could see something like this scenario going down:

Your Inquisitors are grilling this NPC for information and one of them decides to get a little more than hands-on with the questioning and actually renders the NPC unconscious or insensible for a time.

In your Only War game, have this insensibility have an effect. Since the NPC was not able to describe events leading up to the next part of the Only War game, the squad is just dumped into a middle of a fight. When the players are shocked by this, you make it clear that they are denying themselves information.

Absolutely! Any thoughts are most welcome.
I'm thinking of running to a "timescale" (because my players are very chatty, it will have to be figurative rather than literal), that every "half hour" of interrogation, the players can rest, press on, or end the interview. Pressing too long will increase the side effects of the method - Drugging someone may make them jittery, or at worst, cause cardiac stress. Physical torture, and you get the idea. Whatever method chosen, I will call for breaks, but if they cause one through being heavy handed, they'll be groping blind in the present, find other npcs less cooperative, etc.

There will also be the matter of OW affecting the interrogations. If the guardsmen fail to protect a character in the past, the acolytes may find them dead, having missed the events entirely, or uncooperative.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
Thanks for the responses, I am sorry if my initial question is a bit vague!

One example of why I'm curious: I will be allowing two players to investigate an incident as acolytes/inquisitors and would like to offer them a moral spectrum of techniques without killing / destroying the NPC.

In our courts, confession and testimony are not always enough to legally prove something. In 40K, is that a concern? Are there "verified" methods for providing testimony in cases where it becomes a larger issue than one inquisitor's personal judgement?
I refer to things like polygraphs these days, controversy about accuracy aside.

To quote Inquisitor Gregor Eisenhorn, "You are a prisoner of the Inquisition, you have no rights."

And, also, "My patience, unlike my authority, is not limitless."

 Psienesis wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
Thanks for the responses, I am sorry if my initial question is a bit vague!

One example of why I'm curious: I will be allowing two players to investigate an incident as acolytes/inquisitors and would like to offer them a moral spectrum of techniques without killing / destroying the NPC.

In our courts, confession and testimony are not always enough to legally prove something. In 40K, is that a concern? Are there "verified" methods for providing testimony in cases where it becomes a larger issue than one inquisitor's personal judgement?
I refer to things like polygraphs these days, controversy about accuracy aside.

To quote Inquisitor Gregor Eisenhorn, "You are a prisoner of the Inquisition, you have no rights."

And, also, "My patience, unlike my authority, is not limitless."

Is there any level at which they would be wary to press that authority?

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
Thanks for the responses, I am sorry if my initial question is a bit vague!

One example of why I'm curious: I will be allowing two players to investigate an incident as acolytes/inquisitors and would like to offer them a moral spectrum of techniques without killing / destroying the NPC.

In our courts, confession and testimony are not always enough to legally prove something. In 40K, is that a concern? Are there "verified" methods for providing testimony in cases where it becomes a larger issue than one inquisitor's personal judgement?
I refer to things like polygraphs these days, controversy about accuracy aside.

To quote Inquisitor Gregor Eisenhorn, "You are a prisoner of the Inquisition, you have no rights."

And, also, "My patience, unlike my authority, is not limitless."

Is there any level at which they would be wary to press that authority?

Yes, but unfortunatly... this is going to vary from Inqusitor to Inqusitor. as I've said about the Inqusition before. An Inqusitor's power extends as far as he can extend it. that said general areas where the Inqusition will tread carefully are going to be things like Space Marine Chapters, Navigator houses, the Mechanius. Powerful prestigious branches of the Imperium with the strength to push back and a level of support that means it might prove difficult to secure the support needed to take them down. Basicly though it's a matter of the Inqusitor simply knowing his limits. ON PAPER he has unlimited authority. however that authority is, of course, dependant on the cooperation of people

In Master Imus's Transgression, Eisenhorn uses some psyker mojo to freak out the guy making a confession/mind probe him (basically projects a big ugly daemon into his mind)
Also, in the Inquisitor rulebook it mentions Witch Hunter Tyrus making suspects stand for hours whilst holding a sword -blade first while he questions them. If it cuts them, they're guilty (IIRC- been a while since I read it)

Neat idea for a Dark Heresy session.

Only thing I have a problem with is the morality of an acolyte or inquisitor will likely be far, FAR less moral than a citizen of 21st century Earth!

Thanks guys! I've got a lot of reading to do, it seems.

Whilst you're bang on with the morality of the characters being far less than you or I (I'd hope), and one player is determined to play a puritanical Ordo Hereticus inquisitor, We will be setting them amongst genuinely innocent NPCs, including a local war hero. How aware they are of this depends on how good a job they do at investigation, and ironically, interrogation.
There's a number of potential true evils on the peripheral of the situation, which the players manage to find will depend again on success. If they only manage do the task originally set, they aren't very good inquisitors.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
Is there any level at which they would be wary to press that authority?

Depends on the Inquisitor.
There's a term which floats around - "Peer of the Imperium" - which is ill-defined but generally means people who have a claim to 'unlimited authority' or 'to speak for/stand for the Emperor himself'.

Inquisitors are top of the pile, but this class of individuals includes Planetary (and Sub-Sector and especially Sector!) Lords-Governor, Chapter Masters of the Astartes, Rogue Traders, Lords Militant, Cardinals-Astral, and Archmagi of the Mechanicus.

Nothing stops an Inquisitor suspecting, investigating and denouncing such an individual, but this is the level where he's going to need an actual investigation and proof to show to someone to justify his actions; you may have the authority (theoretically) to casually walk up to an Archmagos and shoot them in the head with the justification "oh, he was a heretic" but in practice this leads to the Mechanicus denouncing you as a heretic. More importantly, since the Inquisition really, really needs the co-operation of the Mechanicus to keep starships running and Inquisitorial Guard stormtroopers supplied.....they're probably going to go along with them; a smooth political relationship is more important than one inquisitor's survival....

The only time an Inquisitor is "hesitant" to press the issue is if he or she does not, right then and there, have on hand an equal or superior level of firepower as the person they believe is a heretic.

That said, the vast majority of Inquisitors don't go around just calling random people heretics. Before the exciting stuff happens, with the shooting and burning and kicking down of doors and all that, there's usually months, years even, of careful, painstaking investigation, to ensure that the Inquisition not only has the right heretic, but that they can also scoop up all the co-conspirators and fellow heretics in the net, and burn them all at the stake.

I'm starting to appreciate that's it's more about context than authority. Thanks, especially if this has become a little circular - I'm often frustratingly slow on the uptake.

From what you're saying, whilst an inquisitor wouldn't personally care about vaporising a heretic/traitor, you likely wouldn't find a (relatively) sane one wading in to a political minefield / public image mess? That's when information digging and people lower down the chain would be on the ground to cause less waves?

Well, it is rare that the Inquisition has to worry about "political fallout". There's next to no one in the Imperium who wields as much clout as the Inquisition (including the High Lords of Terra). While the Ecclesiarchy is powerful, there's an entire Ordo dedicated to keeping an eye on them (Ordo Hereticus, if you were curious).

By the mandate, there are 2 organizations in the Imperium who are beyond the authority of His Ordos of the the Holy Inquisition. The first one is the God-Emperor of Mankind, Himself. The second is His Adeptus Custodes.

In practice, an Inquisitor is one part Sherlock Holmes, one part Dirty Harry, and one part Benjamin Disraeli. There are very powerful organizations in the Imperium that can, through their own machinations and firepower, rebuff an Inquisitor. This does not mean that said organization has the right to do so, but persecuting said group is often more trouble than its worth (which is why the Space Wolves and, indeed, the planet Fenris, still exist). The Inquisition tends to get better results through politicking and diplomacy than they do outright demands... at least when dealing with sorts like powerful Cardinals, Planetary Governors, Chapter Masters and Arch-Magi of the Mechanicus.

This is not an issue of "authority", this is an issue of "cost-analysis". While a First Founding Chapter is, technically, subordinate to the Inquisition, Space Marines are proud, vain beings and they don't like being bossed around. It's much easier for an Inquisitor to pen a nice letter on fine vellum and have it delivered by bonded courier than to just show up and start making demands.

From what you're saying, whilst an inquisitor wouldn't personally care about vaporising a heretic/traitor, you likely wouldn't find a (relatively) sane one wading in to a political minefield / public image mess? That's when information digging and people lower down the chain would be on the ground to cause less waves?

Depends on the Inquisitor. Some, like Karamazov, like to really throw their weight around, descending onto planets suspected of harboring heretics with a full Naval fleet and scores of IG Regiments behind them, conducting mass-trials (followed by mass public executions), usually with the line "A plea of innocence is guilty of wasting my time. Guilty!" thrown in for good measure.

Many other Inquisitors are far more subtle, using all manner of field agents of all stripes (the bands of which are commonly called the Inquisitor's "retinue") to gather information, interview contacts, ferret out evidence and handle most of the "field work" while the Inquisitor him/herself collates this information, drawing upon resources available only to them, to build the case and then, once all their ducks are lined up, calling in the Arbites, Sisters of Battle, Space Marines, IG or whoever/whatever is available (depending on the threat) to do the actual head-busting.

It should be noted that the Rosette an Inquisitor carries is recognized throughout the Imperium and will cause stark terror in 99.9% of any Imperial citizen it is shown to. The Inquisition is a terrifying organization, by design and intent.

You're backing up some parts I had a good grasp on, and filling a good few gaps where I don't, thank you kindly!

What would happen if Ordo Hereticus and say, Ordo Xenos were to both be after the same person/organisation, at the same time?
Do the different branches typically pull rank, cooperate, etc?

I realise you'd have to be convolutedly spectacular to attract that level of attention, but from a storytelling PoV I'm curious.

One of the potential outcomes of the scenario is a complete misdirection, that the players should be looking behind them so to speak, rather than the target they were set. A corrupt/bent inquisitor is cliche, but entirely possible.
It also means not limiting the group to one background, if possible.

The entire thing is making me want to dig out Judge Dredd anthologies.

Inquisitors of different Ordos often work together if they discover that they are both pursuing the same target. Technically, all Inquisitors are of an equal rank, but within the organization there's a byzantine structure of influence, experience, recognition and clout that determines who wears certain titles that grants them a measure of authority over other Inquisitors, internal review boards and "local" management teams (generally covering an entire Sector) that are called Conclaves.

However, the Inquisition is extremely secretive, so it's not unknown for two Inquisitors to pursue the same suspect and work at cross-purposes, believing that the traces of the other's investigations they turn up are actions of another party or of the suspect.

Then there's Inquisitors who hate each other, and attempt to foil one another's projects from time to time.

It's also worth noting sometimes Inqusitors investigating the same target are indeed at cross purposes. this is most common when dealing with the radical/puritan split. for example, let's say there's a cult based around a powerful Xenos artifact. a Puritian Ordos Hereticus Inqusitor may be chasing these guys down and intending to destroy the artifact. Meanwhile a radical Ordos Xenos inuqistor may be wanting to claim the artifact for himself. it's possiable these two may activly work against one another, each attempting to sabotoge the other.

If BTW you have not already I can't reccomend eneugh you read the Eisenhorn and Ravenor trilogies

Thanks again, guys!

I know it's stupid, because nobody would know unless I choose to write up an account, but I don't want to do wildly unrealistic things with the story.
If we have a lot of fun, I'd like to pass my work over to other gaming groups I know, but I can't really do that if I smash my ideas into a universe that doesn't match.

I am currently reading the Horus Heresy series, Gaunt's Ghosts and a few IG pieces. I do plan to read Eisenhorn after that!