PDA

View Full Version : Ratio of Puritans and Radicals in Inquisition?



lonepilgrim
11-09-2005, 17:26
I'm currently creating an Inquisition presence for my own corner of the 40k universe, the Skolarii Sector. I'm using the organisational structure of the Eisenhorn novels as a guide (so I have a Sector head, with sub sector chiefs, planetary heads, etc) and I'm wondering what ratio to have between puritans and radicals?

Is it a 50/50 split? Can the Puritans work more successfully within the rules and structure of the Inquisition and so are more prominent or do the Radicals have the guile and ambition to rise to the top?

What do you think?

Xisor
11-09-2005, 17:46
I'd wager that the division is overwhelmingly large. 90/10 or greater in favour of puritans. I don't really have *that* much to base it on really, but on thinking about it, orthodoxy and standard thinking is only really standard if the majority do it. It's not really 'radical' if it's just the same as everyone else you could say.

In light of that, even a 9/1 split would likely be overguesstimating the Radicals.

Xisor

Decius
11-09-2005, 17:49
Well, it would of course vary from sector to sector, but I think puitan/radical splits would be around 60/40 or 70/30 (in my opinion). I would think that there are more puritans than radicals because... something, I don't know. Inquisitorial doctrine? More support for puritans, it's strongly encouraged upon initiation, etc? It seems to make sense that radicals are a minority. Also, Inquisitors that are a little more moderate would probably still fall under puritain, so add there numbers in.

Edit: Actually, Xizor's 90/10 seems better. Also remember that radicals might hide their beliefs. It may seem like 99/01 but it could be closer to 80/20.

Khaine's Messenger
11-09-2005, 17:50
Puritans of no particular factional leaning would probably constitute a singular majority of "known" Inquisitors (say, ~45-50%), then Monodominants and Amalathians (~35-45%), then Thorians (~0-9%), then Xanthites (~1-9%), and then other radicals who have realized that it's to their benefit to keep some ties with "the man." The key thing about most Radicals is that, while they act with the authority of the Inquisition, more often than not they do not operate within any framework other than that of their own divising--the Elucidium, for example, a cavalcade of Istvaanians that plies their wares in the Ultima Segmentum. Abnett's "structure" does not exactly hold together that well when the "factions" are applied (and indeed, while Eisenhorn makes an attempt to instruct the reader on Amalathian philosophy at the end of one of the first chapters of Xenos, it hardly comes up again in the series except as a contrast to Quixos or "random monodominant Inquisitor x"). And all that's just "landed" Inquisitors...there are most likely also those who do not restrict themselves to particular sectors by choice, but rather roam to do as they will...but if you did statistics for the puritans/radicals across the whole of the Imperium, you'd probably find that puritans outnumber the radicals simply because of "cultural momentum," and that most radicals are actually rather aged as things go....

But that's all my guesstimation. ;)

Instigation
12-09-2005, 00:27
Also just to add my two cents, I think, as has been said, that there are far, far fewer radicals since very few are actually born radical. Rather it tends to be the puritans that become radical in the later stages of their careers because they may have seen to much or learnt to much or because they feel that more can be accomplished using radical methodologies. In essense the majority of young inquisitors (if not all) are puritan in nature and see everything in black and white. It is then many of those who have very long careers that have their vision of things "greyed" and as such turn to radicalism.

Also why they appear to always be the aged ones, as khaines messenger has said.

Kiro
12-09-2005, 00:39
I'd say a fairer ratio would be somewhere around 7-3 in favour of Puritans. Don't forget about the acolytes and apprentices ;)....

Emperor's Light
12-09-2005, 04:41
I would say 90% to 10% in Puritan's favor. The Inquisition's tenets are largely puritan which shows that the former is dominant. If there were not a great disparity between the number of Purtians and Radicals, then radicals wouldn't need to disguise their activities and you wouldn't have cases like Lichenstein or Quixos being purged for their radical behavior.

There's more to the power game than numbers though. According the the =][= rulebook, inquisitors grow more cynical as their careers progress and start viewing things more as shades of grey. As such, senior or high-ranking inquisitors may be more tolerant of radicalism, and may indirectly exert their influence to protect and support radical inquisitors, at least behind the scenes.

lonepilgrim
12-09-2005, 07:13
There's more to the power game than numbers though. According the the =][= rulebook, inquisitors grow more cynical as their careers progress and start viewing things more as shades of grey. As such, senior or high-ranking inquisitors may be more tolerant of radicalism, and may indirectly exert their influence to protect and support radical inquisitors, at least behind the scenes.

This is the dilemma I have. My own view is that there are more puritans than radicals (somewhere between 60/40 and 70/30) but that it appears there are more puritans because the radicals hide their true beliefs (so the split appears 90/10 or even higher).

But ... The longer an Inquisitor's career goes on, the greater the chance that he is a radical. However, only senior Inquisitors would rise to positions of power within a Sector. Does that mean radicals rule the place? Surely not.

Wiseman
12-09-2005, 16:01
id say for every 100 puritans you would encounter 1 radical. Radicals would have to think right outside the box, which isnt something the imperium likes, even from Inquisitors, so it wouldnt be often for an inquisitor to be believe in something that is largely suppressed, and anyway how would they be radical if it was the thing to do?

Iracundus
12-09-2005, 16:25
Don't forget these aren't absolute categories that people are locked into. Even ostensibly puritan senior Inquisitors might end up looking the other way in certain circumstances.

Wiseman
13-09-2005, 02:59
and also what someone might call radical another may call puritanical

Brusilov
13-09-2005, 04:20
This is very true Diddimz, radicalism and puritanism are completely subjective, for the most part. Eisenhorn considers himself as a moderate puritan for the most part of the series, while many of his fellow Inquisitors see him more and more as a radical, even simply for acting undercover.

So in the end, accusing someone of radicalism is more of a political statement and would often be used to discredit someone else. After all, it's pretty closed to being accused of heresy by many people, and even the most radical Inquisitors would not want be called such (and may not realise how much of a radical he may be).

Emperor's Light
13-09-2005, 04:28
Well, it's not entirely subjective in that inquisitors may form political blocs around the various schools of thought. The schools of thought that are less generally accepted (and almost by definition have fewer believers) are considered radical. If 80% of all inquisitors had Xanthite beliefs, then Xanthitism probably wouldn't be so "radical" anymore.

Iracundus
13-09-2005, 04:30
Kryptmann's recent political fall from grace shows this subjectiveness pretty well. He was accused of being radical and a traitor, yet his actions undoubtedly bought the Imperium time from Leviathan. I do admit being initially surprised at how quick his fellow Inquisitors were to condemn THE Tyranid expert in the Inquisition, who played a crucial role in stopping multiple hive fleets.

Emperor's Light
13-09-2005, 04:40
Well, success really does decided whether you're a radical or not. You can use daemonhosts and chaos sorcery to defeat Abbadon himself but your use of chaos would still mark you a radical.

Where puritanism ends and radicalism begins is a grey area, I agree with that.

Wiseman
13-09-2005, 05:22
but then the grey area isnt just in this, nearly everything in 40k is a grey area, which i think is part of its appeal, everything is seen as something different by different people

lonepilgrim
15-09-2005, 14:22
I agree that the terms 'radical' and 'puritan' are subjective labels that we, the readers, use to differentiate between Inquisitors, and that the Inquisitors themselves don't necessarily recognise those labels. I'll continue to use them though, as I find them handy for defining the power structure within the Inquisition.

As for the ratio between radical and puritan, the consensus (for those who gave actual numbers) seems to be about 85/15. For the Skolarii Sector, then, I'm going to use an 80/20 split as the real ratio and 95/5 as the apparent split.

Thanks for all your input.

Since Khaine's Messenger has already touched upon this I'm going to open a new thread to discuss the popularity of the different Inquisitorial factions.

Brusilov
17-09-2005, 13:22
You're correct Lightie. But the point I was partially trying to make here is that Inquisitors see radicalism in different shades. For the most extreme monodominant, radicalism is simply using psychic powers or acting undercover. Indeed, there is a grey area as to when people become radicals, because in a sense, trying to bring back the Emperor into a host body is pretty radical belief if you ask me.

Oh and incidently, people think Amalathian are the most numerous brand of Inquisitors, I would disagree with that. They may be numerous and have attract a large following since the Conclave on Gathalamor but they are IIRC not the most numerous because of how recent their belief is.
It may have existed under one form or another but Amalathian philosophy is not even a thousand years old. Please recall that the Conclave of Mount Amalath pushed Macharius to launch his crusade. This was in the beginning of M41, not very long ago considering the lifespan of Inquisitors.

IMHO, this idea of the reasonnable, more balanced people being the most numerous derives from a partially wishful thinking that those moderate would be the most numerous. I would disagree with that. If you take most references from GW, either from the Inquisition Codices or the fluff itself or even the Eisenhorn trilogy, for better or worse the reference on the Inquisition, you'll realise that fanatical puritans seem the most numerous. The two Codices have Torquemado Coteaz and Karamazov and the Eisenhorn books are full of monodominants.
On top of that, monodominance is the mainstream and official belief of the Imperium, and is not contradictory with letting the Emperor's plan unfold. You are just helping along by crushing anything non human, which is what the Emperor aimed for anyway.
One must also remember there are shades in each faction and that every monodominant is not a psycho-rigid anti-psyker.

Iracundus
17-09-2005, 14:10
Except that is how Monodominants are always portrayed. That is where suspension of disbelief fails for if such people were in the majority the Imperium would have collapsed. One cannot go around executing people in power en masse for no crimes without bringing the entire structure crashing down.

Take the example of Inquisitor Tyrus who is a Monodominant. His description mentions one noteworthy case where the accused was actually found innocent, but only after what amounted to miraculous superhuman feats of endurance in a trial by ordeal. The tone of that passage has it that he was one of the very rare if not the only person ever found innocent by Tyrus. If people like Tyrus and Kazmarov go around accusing people and do not accept anything except guilty and death as verdict and sentences, then the structure of the Imperium would be gutted by false convictions.

lonepilgrim
17-09-2005, 14:49
Oh and incidently, people think Amalathian are the most numerous brand of Inquisitors, I would disagree with that. They may be numerous and have attract a large following since the Conclave on Gathalamor but they are IIRC not the most numerous because of how recent their belief is.
It may have existed under one form or another but Amalathian philosophy is not even a thousand years old. Please recall that the Conclave of Mount Amalath pushed Macharius to launch his crusade. This was in the beginning of M41, not very long ago considering the lifespan of Inquisitors.

It may not be very old, but as you mention, that form of thinking was probably around for quite some time before the Conclave, it just wasn't called Amalathian. I reckon they are the most numerous and powerful of the factions for two reasons:

1 - They are the most willing and able to work within the existing power structure of the Inquisition and the Imperium as a whole. They will have offended less people (their senior Inquisitors) who make the decisions about such things.

2- Process of elimination. Who else would be more powerful? Certainly none of the radical factions - they seem to operate beyond the structure of the Inquisition most often and would find it difficult to consolidate their position. After all they can't communicate all of their ideas freely. The Thorians have pretty radical ideas themselves for Puritans, so that only leaves the Monodominants as competition. And while I do think they hold a lot of power I still think the Amalathians hold the edge because of their willingness to work with and not against the people around them on a day to day basis.


IMHO, this idea of the reasonnable, more balanced people being the most numerous derives from a partially wishful thinking that those moderate would be the most numerous. I would disagree with that. If you take most references from GW, either from the Inquisition Codices or the fluff itself or even the Eisenhorn trilogy, for better or worse the reference on the Inquisition, you'll realise that fanatical puritans seem the most numerous. The two Codices have Torquemado Coteaz and Karamazov and the Eisenhorn books are full of monodominants.
On top of that, monodominance is the mainstream and official belief of the Imperium, and is not contradictory with letting the Emperor's plan unfold. You are just helping along by crushing anything non human, which is what the Emperor aimed for anyway.
One must also remember there are shades in each faction and that every monodominant is not a psycho-rigid anti-psyker.


Are you sure about the numbers of fanatical puritans in Eisenhorn, Brusilov? I've just re-read the trilogy and I thought there was a more even spread of puritans, moderates and radicals. You have me doubting myself, now. I might go through the books and recheck.

Brusilov
17-09-2005, 15:35
You're correct Lightie. But the point I was partially trying to make here is that Inquisitors see radicalism in different shades. For the most extreme monodominant, radicalism is simply using psychic powers or acting undercover. Indeed, there is a grey area as to when people become radicals, because in a sense, trying to bring back the Emperor into a host body is pretty radical belief if you ask me.

Oh and incidently, people think Amalathian are the most numerous brand of Inquisitors, I would disagree with that. They may be numerous and have attract a large following since the Conclave on Gathalamor but they are IIRC not the most numerous because of how recent their belief is.
It may have existed under one form or another but Amalathian philosophy is not even a thousand years old. Please recall that the Conclave of Mount Amalath pushed Macharius to launch his crusade. This was in the beginning of M41, not very long ago considering the lifespan of Inquisitors.

IMHO, this idea of the reasonnable, more balanced people being the most numerous derives from a partially wishful thinking that those moderate would be the most numerous. I would disagree with that. If you take most references from GW, either from the Inquisition Codices or the fluff itself or even the Eisenhorn trilogy, for better or worse the reference on the Inquisition, you'll realise that fanatical puritans seem the most numerous. The two Codices have Torquemado Coteaz and Karamazov and the Eisenhorn books are full of monodominants.
On top of that, monodominance is the mainstream and official belief of the Imperium, and is not contradictory with letting the Emperor's plan unfold. You are just helping along by crushing anything non human, which is what the Emperor aimed for anyway.
One must also remember there are shades in each faction and that every monodominant is not a psycho-rigid anti-psyker.

lonepilgrim
17-09-2005, 16:32
Not sure about your last post there, Brusilov, it seems to be a copy of one of your previous posts.

In any case I've had a quick look through the two Inquisition Codices (codii? codexes?) and this is what I came up with:

14 Daemonhunters are mentioned. Quixos, Lichenstein, Kessel and Laredian all seem to be radical Xanthites to me, and Marchant used to be a Xanthite and is now a puritan (possibly a monodominant). Coteaz is another fanatical puritan, Helgrund is a puritan and we know Eisenhorn at least starts out as a puritan Amalathian. Consadine, Apployon, Brand and Flast are unknowns. Grandmaster Osma (from the Eisenhorn books) is also fleetingly mentioned but I can't remember his allegiance for certain - I think he is a fanatical puritan, though.

So four puritans and four radicals. The factions aren't really spelled out clearly.

The Witch Hunters codex only names six Inquisitors as far as I can tell. Eisenhorn crops up again, as does Ravenor (as a trainee) but I'm not sure what philosophy Ravenor has. Karamazov is actually described as a staunch Amalathian! It is also clear he is a fanatical puritan. Enoch is certainly a puritan and the rest are undescribed.

That gives us 3 puritans, two of which are Amalathians.

Outside of the Codices the only other Inquisitor I can think of is Gideon Lorr, who is most certainly a Puritan monodominant.

What is clear from all that is that GW don't really go into too much detail about which faction each Inquisitor belongs to. It also seems to me that an Inquisitor can be a member of any faction and be a monodominant within that faction - as Karamazov is. Monodominance really just means how much you stick to the rules and how pragmatic you are.

Anybody got any thoughts? Do the Ravenor books explain more?

Brusilov
18-09-2005, 03:35
Sorry if it seemed a repost of something I said earlier, there seems to be quite a few threads on the factions of the Inquisition of late and I'm not sure this had been discussed here (since the different threads may not attract the same people, but anyway).

Ravenor is certainly not a mainstream puritan, he is IMHO a radical of no defined faction. But he certainly is a radical since he is using a lots of Eldar technology.

There are also famous Inquisitors like Czevak who seems like a radical but, at least one whose encyclopaedical knowledge on Eldar is well respected. Kryptman is unknown, but he could be a radical as well.

The problem with taking the famous Inquisitors as a reference is that they probably are not representative of the numbers for each faction (kinda contradicting myself here I know). But I still believe that due to the recent creation of the Amalathian as a faction they would be relatively less numerous than other factions.

Emperor's Light
18-09-2005, 11:49
I think the inquisitors themselves make use of the words "puritan" and "radical." Einsenhorn makes use of those phrases in the novels. I would imagine those words are much like the words "conservative" and "liberal" in modern politics, only there's a much greater opinion and dogma that "puritan" is good and "radical" is bad.

The words can also be used to describe relative positions. Everyone else will seem a radical to a monodominant, just like everybody else will seem like a liberal to a Facist.

Factions are less clear. Some inquisitors may clearly identify with one faction and may even say so (Eisenhorn identified himself as an Amalathian during the first book), but other inquisitors might not fit so neatly. Some inquisitors may outright deny belonging to a faction, and admitting belonging or identifying with radical factions will probably get you purged. Eisenhorn began as an Amalathian, but clearly by the end of his career he was a Xanthite.

Brusie, I would consider Ravenor to be Ordo Xenos equivalent of a Xanthite. I have only read the first book, but it appears he is basically willing to use the tools of the enemy against the enemy.

CELS
18-09-2005, 13:45
Don't know if this has already been mentioned, but I recall that Eisenhorn considered extreme monodominants to be just as radical as horusians. So yes, it's a very subjective thing. But for the moment, we can stick by the view presented in the Inquisitor rulebook, where monodominants are puritans.


But I still believe that due to the recent creation of the Amalathian as a faction they would be relatively less numerous than other factions.
Possibly, but the part of the Inquisition that 'recently' converted to Amalthianism may have belonged to a similar faction under a different name before M41.

We have three major monodominant factions. The Thorians are said to belong mostly in the Ordo Malleus, which is arguably the smallest of the Ordos. The Monodominants are said to be mostly made up by the young and zealous Inquisitors, which leads me to believe that they're certainly not the majority. This leaves the Amalthians (and the number of smaller, unknown puritan factions). Based on this, I guess it's something like...
Thorians: 15-25%
Monodominants: 20-40%
Amalthians: 40-65%

I don't think the division between puritans and radicals is as extreme as a 100 to 1 ratio. I would think that Istvaanians and Recongretators are relatively numerous (maybe 5% or more), because I seem to recall many Inquisitors from fluff and fiction that seem to match the description in a way. Xanthites are definitely very outnumbered though.

Brusilov
18-09-2005, 13:55
Actually I'm going to contradict myself partially but the comments on the Amalathian and Eisenhorn have got me thinking.
We seem to consider, wrongly if I may say so, that every Inquisitor must belong to a faction. This is not the case IMO. That every Inquisitor would be a puritan or a radical, and seen as either by his peers, is beyond doubt. But to actually belong to a faction means you are actively engaging in the inner politics of the Inquisition, something that all Inquisitors are not insterested in doing.

Indeed Eisenhorn himself mentions that he believes he has more important stuff to do than engage in the political dance of the Ordo Helican. As such Amalathian may appear so numerous because many Inquisitors are Amalathian by default. They do their job as Inquisitors and do not concern themselves with the way the Imperium is ruled, except when they have to deal with it. They are Amalathian in the sense that they believe in the status quo as being the Emperor's Will.

On the other hand, you have active Amalathian, who purposefully true to maintain the fragile balance between the many organisations of the Imperium and further its unity. They especially hunt down anyone they see as a threat to the stability of the Emperor's realm and are particularly ruthless against Istvaanians and Recongregators.

As such yes Amalathians could be the most numerous, but also the less active faction, because most of its "members" would not take active part in the politics of the Inquisition

lonepilgrim
19-09-2005, 17:21
Good point, Brusilov.

I think it is clear that the factions as outlined in the Inquisitor rulebook and subsequent codices are slightly problemmatic and it is probably wise to assume that a good chunk of Inquisitors aren't actually active within a faction. They may have tendencies towards a certain philosophy, or even detest a particular faction so feel an affinity for it's polar opposite, but they just get on with the day to day business of being an Inquisitor out in the field.

The rest are probably the more 'deskbound' members of the Inquisition, using the internal politics of the organisation to gain personal power and fight for the way the Inquisition is run, or those totally consumed by their cause.