Andor said:

That I could, but I prefer to avoid going through all that trouble when a simple 'no' will suffice. A player rolling a Comissar doesn't have to be a homicidal maniac or an incredibly sadistic bastard, sure. I may be even wrong and am not giving my players enough credit. But I feel that just having the threat of that kind of mess happening is unhealthy in an RPG group.

My take, really. Every gaming table is a pocket dimension in and of itself.

JuankiMan said:

Commissars may be nasty bastards, but most aren't complete idiots. Those that are tend not to survive very long (as mentioned earlier they tend to fall victim to 'enemy fire' surprisingly far from the enemy lines). The rest don't go around executing guardsmen at the drop of a hat. While they may use fear to keep the men in line most also try to be inspiring, rousing them to acts of valour and leading by example. That doesn't mean they need to be brilliant tacticians or anything (so the stats as-is would seem to be fine) and it certainly makes them playable.

Certainly if there's a problem in your group which would lead to this being abused then you should ban the commissar, but I don't see it as any more problematic than having a player be a Rogue Trader or an Inquisitor.

macd21 said:

I was thinking the same thing about the Rogue Trader and Inquisitor PC’s from RT and Dark Heresy.

I’d also like to point out (as has been touched on in a way) that any Commissar PC is basically a junior commissar, sure they have the same authority but in most respects they ought to be relatively young and inexperienced, they should play them as such. No commissar starts out as Gaunt or Cain, or even the a-hole blasting every imagined infraction. That’s what they become, and even those jerk-ish guys probably got that way for a reason, they probably saw something that made them see enemies around every corner, maybe they did witness a full demonic incursion brought on by a young IG grunt reading a proscribed text and so now they shoot first ask questions never, but a junior commissar like the PC should be fresh from the schola and still feeling their way out. OR they have been with this regiment longer than most commissar are with a single regiment and they know the way to work with these guys and girls and should, as such, not have any interaction problems.

Just my two cents.

It seems to me that Yarrik, Gaunt and Cain each break the Commisar mold in their own way and thus amke for interesting characters. In a group-oriented RPG, there is a need for the players characters to adhere more closely to their role. After all, it makes little sense for the sniper character to be a hand-to-hand specialist instead of a ranged specialist, it makes little sense for the Comissar to be a scrounger and fixer instead of bolstering morale.

There is always room for pursuing special character traits in the form of Elite Advances, something that should perhaps be more strongly encouraged?

-K

kjakan said:

But without restricted character growth you don't need elite advances anymore. Everything is open.

Elite Advances could offer talents the character exhibits they should have for cheaper. If my PC managed to do something to really aid the Ad Mech, Peer(Ad Mech) for half price may be in order.

KommissarK said:

I didn't think about that, I forgot you could use them in that way.