In a way Omsa and Heldane were worse than Eisenhorn towards the end. Eisenhorn didn't have much of a choice in some regards and then again it's a part of the job description. They walk in the dark places and eventually that darkness will stay with them. There is a picture in one of the DH sourcebooks that shows an Inquisitor early in his career. He looks like some visage of the Emperor with golden light streaming around him and beautiful ornate armor. A couple of years later in his career he looks like a CSM. Heretical icons and daemonic wards are all over his armor / face. Why? Probably because they serve a purpose but all Inquisitors cross that line eventually.
Would you consider Tyrus a puritan? He's a blind fool that has murdered millions and half the time they weren't even heretics. Just the average Imperial citizen. I'm not talking about Inquisitors being nice. Every inquisitor is different and Emperor knows there are millions of them. (What drew me to the Inquisition was the amount of personalities, methods and styles.) I'm talking about them crossing the line. Look at Xanthus, Lichtenstein, Eisenhorn, . I'm sure at one point they were the epitome of Puritanism (At least Eisenhorn was.) but once you've worn the rosette for a few years you realize that the universe isn't white and black.
Considering the Ordo Malleus are the ones fighting the horrors from the ratio of radicals to puritans is different than the Hereticus, Xenos, Sicarius, Sepulturum, Chronos, etc but I would say fighting Chaos with Chaos is probably the only way to win. Xanthism and Oblationism both seek the same thing which is to defeat Chaos. The Xanthites are typically arrogant idiots (Carl Thonius I'm looking at you) who really think they can defeat the enemy and remain pure. But Oblationists sacrifice themselves and cross the line willingly in order to defeat the warp. Both are radical but it's all about the Inquisition's philosophy of does the end justify the means?
The puritans are often just as narrow-minded and foolish. Do you honestly think that you can be an Inquisitor without crossing the line or becoming corrupted? You can't. Even the ones like Tyrus and that Witch-Hunter in the second Eisenhorn book are just as radical as the Xanthus's and Nephtys's of the universe. Radicalism is just a way of saying unorthodox. Half the time someone being labeled a heretic is just a pissing contest between children given way too much power and authority. I don't see radicalism as some kind of evil, heretical, blasphemy which deserves death. It's just a way of saying that they use means that are different from the norm. Yes sometimes it can get pretty messed up and they do heretical stuff but the "line" isn't some giant bright red line in the world of gray.
I forget what Osma and Heldane were trying to accomplish but donkey face was definitely a heretic. They were both trying to capture Cherubael and use it to their own means. Of course you can't kill Eisenhorn because he is the epitome of awesomeness. But for being such a tried and true, good vs. evil, puritan Daemonhunter Osma should have destroyed Cherbuael. He was going to use it much like Eisenhorn. So thus they are both radicals. Heretics? No. Because it all goes back to that does the end justify the means philosophy. Seemed like some kind of epic rivalry instead of some kind of witch-hunt. But donkey face, Heldane, is a different story. I haven't read the Gaunt's Ghost novels where he is involved but from the tidbits I've found seems like he's pretty much as heretical as you can get. Even he at one point was a puritan and his master, Voke, was even more puritan than Eisenhorn. Even until the end old Commodus died a puritan.
Quixos though is a different story. He wanted to save the Imperium from the warp and close the eye. But he is definitely a heretic. As with Heldane I'm sure from their viewpoint it all seemed like the right thing. But in reality it's completely different. At one point wasn't he one of the shining stars of the Ordo Malleus? He was one of the most zealous and brilliant daemonhunters around but he fell much harder, faster and farther than anyone I've seen. I wish they would write more about the Inquisition and even come out with a Quixos omnibus.
Would you consider Tyrus a puritan? He's a blind fool that has murdered millions and half the time they weren't even heretics. Just the average Imperial citizen. I'm not talking about Inquisitors being nice. Every inquisitor is different and Emperor knows there are millions of them. (What drew me to the Inquisition was the amount of personalities, methods and styles.) I'm talking about them crossing the line. Look at Xanthus, Lichtenstein, Eisenhorn, . I'm sure at one point they were the epitome of Puritanism (At least Eisenhorn was.) but once you've worn the rosette for a few years you realize that the universe isn't white and black.
Considering the Ordo Malleus are the ones fighting the horrors from the ratio of radicals to puritans is different than the Hereticus, Xenos, Sicarius, Sepulturum, Chronos, etc but I would say fighting Chaos with Chaos is probably the only way to win. Xanthism and Oblationism both seek the same thing which is to defeat Chaos. The Xanthites are typically arrogant idiots (Carl Thonius I'm looking at you) who really think they can defeat the enemy and remain pure. But Oblationists sacrifice themselves and cross the line willingly in order to defeat the warp. Both are radical but it's all about the Inquisition's philosophy of does the end justify the means?
The puritans are often just as narrow-minded and foolish. Do you honestly think that you can be an Inquisitor without crossing the line or becoming corrupted? You can't. Even the ones like Tyrus and that Witch-Hunter in the second Eisenhorn book are just as radical as the Xanthus's and Nephtys's of the universe. Radicalism is just a way of saying unorthodox. Half the time someone being labeled a heretic is just a pissing contest between children given way too much power and authority. I don't see radicalism as some kind of evil, heretical, blasphemy which deserves death. It's just a way of saying that they use means that are different from the norm. Yes sometimes it can get pretty messed up and they do heretical stuff but the "line" isn't some giant bright red line in the world of gray.
I forget what Osma and Heldane were trying to accomplish but donkey face was definitely a heretic. They were both trying to capture Cherubael and use it to their own means. Of course you can't kill Eisenhorn because he is the epitome of awesomeness. But for being such a tried and true, good vs. evil, puritan Daemonhunter Osma should have destroyed Cherbuael. He was going to use it much like Eisenhorn. So thus they are both radicals. Heretics? No. Because it all goes back to that does the end justify the means philosophy. Seemed like some kind of epic rivalry instead of some kind of witch-hunt. But donkey face, Heldane, is a different story. I haven't read the Gaunt's Ghost novels where he is involved but from the tidbits I've found seems like he's pretty much as heretical as you can get. Even he at one point was a puritan and his master, Voke, was even more puritan than Eisenhorn. Even until the end old Commodus died a puritan.
Quixos though is a different story. He wanted to save the Imperium from the warp and close the eye. But he is definitely a heretic. As with Heldane I'm sure from their viewpoint it all seemed like the right thing. But in reality it's completely different. At one point wasn't he one of the shining stars of the Ordo Malleus? He was one of the most zealous and brilliant daemonhunters around but he fell much harder, faster and farther than anyone I've seen. I wish they would write more about the Inquisition and even come out with a Quixos omnibus.
