The Forge Archives

Interesting metaphysical bind you've discovered regarding the Ordo Caudex's Nefarius attribute. The most direct perversion of education is dogma. But by the nature of Inquisitors, they're all in favor of dogma. Oh well.

- Walt

Yep. I think this goes to the problem that people are having with this idea as a whole. Normally in Paladin, the Light side is something that I as the player agree with personally, or is close enough to what I consider virtuous that I can hang with it. In the case of this game, however, I have to accept that the overly dogmatic church presented is morally right. This rubs me the wrong way. I'd probably play it as the heretics being the only correct ones, and give them "open-minded" trait versions of the Nefarious "Church doctrines".

(BTW, I forgot to mention that in my mind I'm playing the "40K" version of this game. You may have caught on from some of my suggestions, however.)

Mike

Mike,
Awesome minor orders. Inquisitor does contain the basic assumption that the Inquisitors are doing the Right Thing. But then, the Right Thing can be varied among the orders and people within that order. The overly dogmatic church is right, but more because heresy (more often than not) leads to demonic corruption. It's not a kind universe.

Oh, and heresy is a Big Deal. It's not just some reinterpretation of Scripture (which, in many cases, is either valid, tolerated or can coexist with the Inquisition, the Church and various monastic orders). Heresy is ignoring some central tenet and running with it, sinning like a madman and courting dark powers. In my sample adventure, the two main antagonists are a lustful demon-worshipping ex-monk and a lustful flock-stealing ex-Inquisitor.

The flock is viewed and treated like simple folk, and (with little exception) are easily swayed by both the Preachers (Shepherds) and Warriors (Dogs).

So when you think of Inquisitor, don't picture the Spanish Inquisition with people burning all over the place and perceived witches under every rock. It's more like a dull medieval society (landowners, peasants, merchants as the Flock, mercenaries and armies as the Dogs, priests and monks as the Shepherds, nobility carrying secular power. But add to that the very real danger of psychic powers and demon possession. Games, of course, focus on the dangers.

Quote from: Zak ArntsonThe overly dogmatic church is right, but more because heresy (more often than not) leads to demonic corruption. It's not a kind universe.

Right, but unfortunately, me, Mike Holmes, thinks thats a world that sucks and I'm not sure I want to be a part of it. I want a universe more similar to other Paladin worlds where what is right there corresponds closely with what I. the player, think is right. And I think that I'm not the only one. I'm sure it will appeal to some, but it will not to others. IMO.

QuoteOh, and heresy is a Big Deal. It's not just some reinterpretation of Scripture (which, in many cases, is either valid, tolerated or can coexist with the Inquisition, the Church and various monastic orders). Heresy is ignoring some central tenet and running with it, sinning like a madman and courting dark powers. In my sample adventure, the two main antagonists are a lustful demon-worshipping ex-monk and a lustful flock-stealing ex-Inquisitor.

See that's what I see as the simple answer. The more complex answer would be to say that there are some heretics who somehow get light Animus. Thus sort of proving that they are on the correct side of the universe as well (and that the Church is not entirely correct). In this case, characters would not actually be able to tell what another was using. Thus a heretic could be using Light Animus, and yet, another could assume that he was using dark, given his teachings. That would be interesting.

But the best solution for me would be to say that the whole Church is bad, and that only the heretics have it right. I'm going to write a counter version like that.

QuoteIt's more like a dull medieval society (landowners, peasants, merchants as the Flock, mercenaries and armies as the Dogs, priests and monks as the Shepherds, nobility carrying secular power. But add to that the very real danger of psychic powers and demon possession. Games, of course, focus on the dangers.

I see what you're saying, but somehow it still comes off a bit off kilter. For me. Perhaps if I look at it again I can find what bugs me more specifically.

Mike

Mike,
I think the world would suck to be a part of, too. Or do you mean in the general gaming sense?

Inquisitors aren't morally reprehensible. Take a look at the Vows. Clinton's default setting (while awesome, don't get me wrong) has "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" as its Unbreakable Law. This is a pretty definite "kill the badguys" statement.

I wanted to get away from that, so Obesiance to the Scripture is the number one vow (and the Scripture is purposely left ill-defined to be tailored by the group, something not clear in the current unfinished text). After the big vow comes Poverty, Chastity and Obedience, hardly binding your Inquisitors to act evil in the modern sense of the word.

So, Mike, I'm curious as to what exactly turns you off of the setting.

QuoteYou will basically be Inquisitors for the Church in a gothic fascist future.

I think it's the fascist part. I get this definite Warhammer 40K idea from this, and I just think of the Imperials as grey, to bad. Sounds just like what you were going for here.

If you've gotten rid of that, then all is well. If the Church is all goodnes and light in a dark word, then I have no problem with it. That's how I see a Paladin order. I have no problem plaing most games with morally ambiguous characters, but not Paladin. The Paladins must be on the side of right, and that's right as I see it as a player.

As far as the witch killing in the original setting that does not bother me as long as the witches are objectively evil.

Again, this is a personal preference, and may not stop anyone else from playing a member of a fascist church. For all I know, there are people who would think that this is "right". I just don't.

Mike

Hee, that's the first email I sent out. I should clarify in that document that Inquisitor no longer matches that first email. My vision has changed since then, especially with my (still reading it) reading The Name of the Rose.

My current vision is to allow the actual group to dictate the harshness of the Inquisition and the Church. It could be a dark, violent place where the Flock is an unwashed horde swayed easily by any demagogue (who is always possessed by demons), and all heretics are to be put to the sword; to a compassionate world with a merciful Clergy who tries first and foremost to exorcise demons from the poor sinner, and resorts to violence against humanity as a last resort.

In my personal game, the Inquisitors are good guys with the high temptation of power through sin. Their job is to root out heresy. They need to be vigilant against their own hatred, because compassion is a virtue. The Flock (non-clergy), by their simplicity, is easily swayed back from heresy and forgiven for the crimes against the Scripture they may have committed. The Wolves (heresiarchs, be they secular heretical leaders or clergy-turned-to-sin) are another matter, and they are far more dangerous and thus dealt with in a much harsher manner. It's definitely not a democratic environment; it's a caste system (the division of the clergy, warriors and the flock) where the Scripture is the highest authority, and the Church following that.

The big conflict my group's Inquisitors will face is the constant struggle against stacked odds. Demons and sinners tend not to restrict themselves, where Inquisitors must decide to obey their Vows and possibly fail, or sin for cause greater than their souls.

I'd like to see other visions of the Inquisitors' universe, though. Mike, what kind of world would you put your Inquisitors in?

My world would look much like what you describe, though in the "40K" future.

Cooler, though would be the idea of heretical orders fighting against the odds against a badguy church. That sounds like a ton of fun to me. The best thing is that I can use your order notes, and just have all the badguy orders be the same as listed but of the belief that the Traits listed were reversed (while not actually). Thus, the Heretical Ordo Nautum would look like I have it written up, while their counterparts on the other side (Ordo Manipulum?) would think that Manipulation was the Light aspect and Communication effete, and thus dark. They would be mechanically incorrect, however, and would have to deal with the fact that they were actually dark. A cool theme thus becomes convincing members of the dark side of the error of their ways. That in fact the church is wrong, and that the heresy is correct. This has a much more rebel feel, and actually, now that I think of it is much like SW after the fall of the Jedi, thematically speaking. Hmmm...

That all said, what you describe above is nowhere in the text. Whereas that letter is. Not to sound smug, but I con only comment on the game as written. Can't ready your mind. Did I miss a post on this?

Mike

Ooh, I'll be sure (if I ever write this up in full) to mention the heretical orders as a Paladin option (with due and proper credit, of course). As far as a rebellion goes, the default notion is that the Church is a bastion of hope against the overwhelming forces of humanity's propensity towards sin (and thus towards demonic incursion). That's why the Clergy is needed, to guide the Flock in this uphill struggle. The Inquisition is the most in-your-face ass-kicking organization within that.

In fact, you could play up the Orders as still proper, but secretly against the heresy of the Church, which has misinterpreted the Scripture. The Church (and even the Orders) could be overrun by sin, with the Inquisitors battling demons within and without the Church. That would play up a more rebel approach without dipping too far into Star Wars territory (i.e., rebel army fighting against an oppressive government). Unless, of course, you want pure Star Wars themes with 40k style.

And no, you aren't expected to read my mind. It's good you ask these things, because this thread is slowly turning into the default Inquisitor setting.

Quote from: Zak ArntsonIn fact, you could play up the Orders as still proper, but secretly against the heresy of the Church, which has misinterpreted the Scripture. The Church (and even the Orders) could be overrun by sin, with the Inquisitors battling demons within and without the Church. That would play up a more rebel approach without dipping too far into Star Wars territory (i.e., rebel army fighting against an oppressive government).

Ooh, that would make a neat option. How about an optional Meta-plot where the church starts out good, but is slowly decaying. Then the players can choose a level of decay to play at. The ultimate adventure becomes bringing the church back into line. But the GM can have it get worse before it gets better. Neato.

The reason I went right to the "against the odds" optipon is that just seemed instantly the coolest to me. But thinking about it, rooting around inthe heirarchy would be cool. Lots of intrigue. Of course later the PCs find out "just how high" this corruption has climbed, when the head of the church goes openly bad. Lots of possibilities. Cool.

Mike

Zak, as it points out in the Inquisitor rulebook, almost all inquisitors have different views on what is and what isn't heresy. This leads to awsome confrontation amongst inquisitors and thats what the book is centered around.. Although that is a battle game, and not suited to role playing. Not all inquisitors route out heresy. Xenos do indeed kill aliens, genestealer infestation and the like. Hereticus tend to like fire a lot as well...

Im not sure if im helping here, so im gonna shut up now :p

- Seamus

Your ideas are interesting, Sean, but the question is how close to WH does Zak want to be? I think that as inspiration it's cool, but departing from there makes sense. Paladin does not need all that much depth of setting to play out well. Not that I don't like such depth, just that in this case, we don't have to be slaves to the inspirational material.

I think this has a life of it's own at this point, and that's a good thing.

Mike

S.Lonergan,
Mike's right about using 40k as an inspiration. I like the gothic church imagery, but most of it is out. The default inquisitor setting features no WH-style power suits, no orks, genestealers or eldar, no Chaos Demons. In fact, the best way I can describe it right now is the philosophies found in The Name of the Rose (by Umberto Eco), the atmosphere of Warhammer 40k, and the action of Star Wars.

The Inquisitors themselves (their worldview, anyway) are more closely modelled on Dominican and Franciscan Monks than Warhammer's inquisitors.

Oh, and don't shut up. It's good to clear these things up, in case other people are equating Paladin: Inquisitor with Warhammer 40k. In fact, with the vague presentation of the default Inquisitor setting, you could easily transport it into a Warhammer 40k universe. Or even a semi-historical Europe setting.

Hi Zak,

I suggest giving the role-playing game The Mutant Chronicles a very complete read. It's almost identical to what you're describing (or focusing on, through discussion). The Heretic's Handbook supplement is exceptionally well-written and conceived.

And I don't suppose the Fading Suns parallels are being lost on anyone either.

Best,
Ron

Mutant Chronicles? I'll look for it, though I'm not sure if I can find it readily. Target Games website (www.target.se) is out and Google isn't helping. Any advice on where to find it? (oh, and is it a roleplaying game, or a miniatures game, or both?)

And yeah, I did reread my 1st ed. Fading Suns and Players Handbook copies. That's why I nixed flamethrowers as a default Inquisitor weapon. And it urged me to portray the Inquisitors as intelligent and decent, as opposed to the ignorant psycho detailed in the FS book.