Characters falling into corruption, and player choice

[Ron Edwards]

Hi,

Just to clarify, as long as we're not talking about making a Star Wars game, then we can talk Star Wars (game or movies, preferably the former) 'til the cows come home.

Best,
Ron

[Walt Freitag]

Actually I was about to try to generalize this anyway. The danger of characters falling into corruption is a very widely applicable trope. It shows up in gangster flicks, fantasy (that whole One Ring thing), horror, and of course it is central to Sorceror.

The mechanism that I think works poorly, over and over again, is "you just did X, make a roll to avoid corruption." If this is what Pyron was referring to, then I agree with him. This mechanism is just bad for all kinds of reasons:

- In tempts players who do not want their characters corrupted to play the odds anyway. Then if it happens, it feels like bad luck rather than a conseqence of choice.

- Some systems require such rolls involuntarily, based on things the character did that the player (and often, the character) had no control over. It's hard to imagine anything more deprotagonizing, and again it reduces deep moral issues to a damn crapshoot.

- It reverses cause and effect. You're able to commit murder because you've lowered your humanity to do so. It's not that doing it lowers your humanity after you're done. (Oh, wait, your humanity actually went down afterward not because you did it, but because you didn't feel guilty about it afterward? What the heck does that mean? Especially when, in the case where the character did something beyond his control, the corruption supposedly happens because the character does feel guility about it?)

- If you did the deed, why should you be able to avoid the corruption?

All things considered, I'd prefer just about any mechanism over this. Even D&D's "you read the wrong book, take alignment damage and lose all your powers" is better. At least that mechanism doesn't pretend to be taking the moral questions seriously.

- Walt

[Valamir]

You sparked an interesting idea Walt.

I'm imagining a game whose focus is narrow enough that most of the "standard" actions characters would take can be listed on a reasonably sized table.  Things like "Kill a person to protect yourself", "Kill a person to protect another", "Kill an animal which is threatening livestock", "Steal some money from someone who is rich", "Steal everything from someone and leave them destitute", "Kill an intelligent being and take his stuff even though he isn't technically human", "rape and torture an innocent girl"..."Make her mother watch", etc.

Each of these items would correspond to a level of "humanity", or "goodness" or whathave you.  Your character absolutely can NOT, repeat can NOT willing perform any action lower on the table than his current score.  The player can, with suitable roleplaying and in character justifying, voluntarily reduce his score to a level where the activity becomes acceptable.  

Each occassion where the character performs an act on the table, it is checked off.  It becomes progressively more difficult to raise the score the more common the lower activities become.  Only by roleplaying a suitable act of redemption can the score increase.

Not sure how it would play in practice, but it would be an interest variation on "alignment".  Palladium alignments took small steps in this direction, but, to my knowledge, never made them a central feature of game play.

[Eric J.]

Which makes perfect sense.  I try to justify my opinions, and if I have a bad habbit, of doing that, please tell me WHERE on this thread, or you're just as bad as I am.  I would try to correct the problem here or justify my reasoning you'd just allow me. Anyway:

O.K. seduction still allows for choice, as it makes the options still there, but I don't think that any mechanic that could potentially exist would simulate the seduction of the dark side.  The problem is, that things that seduce, take away your ability to use logic, while RPG mechanics don't.

[Bankuei]

I have to disagree with you there on the concept of mechanics being unable to simulate seduction/corruption.  For example, any game that requires you to make a willpower type roll of any sort is simulating that right there.  If you have any disadvantages, such as greedy, lecherous, or addictions, that also is a simulation of willpower vs. temptation.  What I will say is that many(but not all) of these mechanics can be deprotagonizing, but, if you as a player have chosen to take those disadvantages, then really you want to be hosed with them from the start.

What works better, is to have those disadvantages, but allow them to be countered by certain advantages or desires that are stronger, or mitigate the problems.  For example, one person could have both Lecherous, and Dutiful, and the two would come into conflict if this individual was asked to guard and protect the King's daughter, soon to be married(who isn't all that virtuous herself...).

On the other hand, mechanics that give big advantages to those who take the temptations(such as the greater dice bonus for Darkside forces), really do make you juggle priorities as a player.  It's much more entertaining when the slide into corruption was a price you were willing to pay at the time.  Players aren't always necessarily against the idea of corruption.  The story of redemption and salvation is always one that is popular throughout the ages.

Chris

[simon_hibbs]

What works better, is to have those disadvantages, but allow them to be countered by certain advantages or desires that are stronger, or mitigate the problems.  For example, one person could have both Lecherous, and Dutiful, and the two would come into conflict if this individual was asked to guard and protect the King's daughter, soon to be married(who isn't all that virtuous herself...).

That's a good example, and I think it shows that this isn't just a player/game mechanics issue. The GM also have a pivotal role to play in this kind of roleplaying situation. Game mechanics alone aren't sufficient to enable a temptation/redemption plot except perhaps by pure accident. To real make it work, I think, takes GM connivance. That means setting up situations in which the player can be tempted.

"I notice you've used up all your Force Points, but wait, isn't that a killer robot about to mangle Princess Lala on the other side of the chasm? If only you had another Force Point so you could leap the abyss and save her..... of course, there's always the Dark Side!"

That's a fairly workmanlike, but unsatisfying example. Perhaps more satisfying, and less rules mechanical tests are of the "Save your friend, or save the planet" kind. No game mechanic necessery.

Sliding into corruption is the easy bit though. The realy tricky part is how to handle the laborius climb back up into the light. Perhaps to right the wrongs that are the consequence of one's actions. Of course the ultimate test is that of self-sacrifice.


Simon Hibbs

[Mike Holmes]

The simple problem here, Eric, is that you are expressing your or your players Gamist tendencies. That is, yes, if you are playing in a Gamist fashion, the player will use logic to overcome the situation and thus win out. What you have described is what is referred to as Pawn Stance, that meaning that the players make decisions using their characters as though they were pawns in a game without consideration for the character's feelings, or the direction of the story, etc.

However, what you are missing is that many players play in a Simulationist or Narrativist mode, using other stances like Actor, and Author. In these modes and using these stances, choosing the corruption path is a viable option, because the player is either doing so because he believes that the character would do so (regardless of waht the player thinks is tactically sound), or because it creates a story of higher literary merit, emulating the actual SW saga for example. Lots of players play like this. There are essays on this site that can help you get a grasp on thse concepts.

Until you understand these other modes of play you aren't going to be able to understand a lot of what's going on in these discusions. You simply do not hav enough expeience with other modes of play. Just because your players play Gamist doesn't mean all players play Gamist. Such mechanics as are being discussed do exist (as mentioned, for example, in Sorcerer), and work wonderfully well for such players. This thread does not cater only to you, so it will necessarily include such discussion.

Nobody expects perfection from anyone here, Eric. But this site is peopled by adults. You must either act like an adult here, or you will be treated like a child.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Mike,

I'm doing this publicly for a reason ...

Back off on Eric. He's doing fine.

Eric, don't flare up on this one. I've covered it.

Best,
Ron

[Bankuei]

On the note of redemption, we just wrapped up our RoS campaign in which I was playing an ex-soldier with a big thing for not killing.   I managed to survive with only killing one person by accident.  It was rather fun to play someone struggling to fufill their own vows and work within the self-imposed limitations.  On the other hand, I could easily see going over the edge and also being entertaining as well.  

What I do enjoy in "seduction" mechanics, which appear in most(if not all) of Whitewolf, L5R, and many other games, is that, when done correctly, help reinforce the setting.  L5R's taint can just happen to you by being near it, which isn't so much of a player choice, on the other hand, it shows you just how nasty your enemy is.  Abberant's taint on the other hand, is simply the quick route to power, and totally falls in line with the Dark side idea.

Chris

[Eric J.]

I'll try to clarify my thoughts.

1. This argument is based in mechanics anyway.  If players are volintarily being seduced by evil then what is the point of having mechanics there at all?  Gamist decisions can have wonderful impact, because they can reflect the player's opinion better than the other two styles, as a whole.  I made an immature post, and I appologize.  I meant to say that you must try hard to integrate seduction into mechanics to make it work.  In Sorcerer it is a premise for the game.  Problem solved.  People are made to rely on abilities that can cause corruption.  I am simply arguing against mechanics that give you a short term bonus with a long term negative impact, especially if the long term negative impact is visible.  One of my players recently took on a dark side technique for defence.  I told him that he would gain a dark side point but he simply stated that, "I knew that already."  I was stunned.  Here was my first oppertunity to corrupt a player.

[erithromycin]

I run a LARP loosely based on V:TM, but since playing's free [1] and we don't do anything with our homebrew rules other than use them I figure I can sort of mention it. Especially if I remember to put the 'This is not a challenge to...' blurb in the rules as soon as I get home. Different background, different system, though some rules are a bit similar. The way we track corruption however, isn't.

Anyway, we got rid of Humanity, because it sucked, and replaced it with Corruption. You don't lose something by doing evil, you gain it. Or rather, this being a Vampire game, your 'Beast' does. Corruption, which is also your evil/vampiric nature increases, within a two stage ten-point scale. Your average human has a corruption of 1:5, say, which means he can lie, cheat occasionally, and speed 'when it's safe'. At 1:9, if he gains another 'point' of corruption, he goes to 2:2. As you've probably noticed, if you gain a point at 9:9 you'll hit an infinite corruption loop.

You gain corruption for performing transgressive acts within your level of corruption. At one, you're a regular joe, by three you're a sociopath who'll reach for violence first, at five you'll kill a boatload of immigrants to power your disciplines/physical attributes for a dirty weekend [2] by seven you'll kill people without thinking about it. The kind of acts that you'd need to perform to get past those levels are, well, unpleasant.

As you go up a corruption level [from 2:9 to 3:3, say], you gain a merit, a flaw, and a point in a discipline. It's got an advantage, obviously, but, at first, our players were kept ignorant of how the system worked. Do bad things, get more powerful. Do bad things, find it harder to keep yourself in check. Because Corruption is numerical, it can be used, within the system, to provide a basis for frenzy tests. We also allow it to be used as a replacement for willpower, and to power supernatural abilities, but that's to tempt them. I think I'm drifting.

The penalties for high levels of corruption come in at a plot/GM level. They can commit vile acts without noticing within their frame of reference. [It helps that downtime tends to be vague]. They also frenzy faster, and stuff. It's not balanced, at all. Two characters of equal age, but differing corruption, will usually, if they fight, see the less corrupt one die. The extra flaws given to the corrupt give them weaknesses, but they can be "coped-with", one way or another.

Losing corruption requires good works on a scale akin to the level of corruption you're at. Building a hospital might start you on the way to losing some of corruption 5. Your good works take a point at a time, and 6:0 become 5:9. It's easy to go up, and hard to come down. Not coming down, however, means that you're easier to spot [if people can see that sort of thing], impossible to trust [ditto], and generally incapable of subtlety. You can get away with it until you do something stupid, when you'll get jumped on and destroyed. It's happened to every high corruption character introduced/developed in our game, and while it's a risk some are willing to take, the dread hand of social justice plays a big role in dissuading people from reaching too far. Much like life, really.

Of course, all that means is that the bad guys are tougher. Which we like.

erith -

[1] Actually free, we don't charge for anything [apart from ribbons, and even then only if they've lost the first set].
[2] Something like 1000 blood points spent by two characters in six or seven days. Players are scary.

[Lance D. Allen]

Erith,

That is the most interesting take on V:tM that I've ever seen.. If I ever run another Vampire game... mind if I use it?

[erithromycin]

Not really, no. I've sent you [in the about to sense] a PM with my email address inside, so you can send me yours. I'll probably need to talk to Sam about it [him being the guy who created the rules, but me being the guy who rewrote 'em], but yeah, I don't see a problem with it. The whole corruption business bears a similarity to the system used in Durham By Night [I think], a Dark Ages game. Of course, our one goes up to eleven.

Has anyone else experimented with this stuff outwith the context of a Star Wars or Vampire game? Beyond Paladin and Sorceror, I mean.
erith -

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

Side note: there is no ban on discussing Vampire or any other role-playing game at the Forge, especially in the context of Actual Play or RPG Theory. I'm not sure why Drew felt any hesitation about mentioning it in his post.

Best,
Ron

[Walt Freitag]

erith, I like this mechanism. I explained before why I don't like the fortune element in humanity loss / corruption gain mechanisms. Your fractional increments are an excellent alternative.

Having fewer increments at each corruption level is a very nice touch. Of course, as you said it takes a much more serious act to go from say 7.7 to 7.8 than it would to go from 2.7 to 2.8, so each successive level has fewer increments but each increment is more significant. That means if you're bent on corruption you could accelerate into it dramatically, but if you're trying to resist it each level would be about an equal milestone and you might be able to maintain an equilibrium under most circumstances.

The fact that the mechanism leads to an infinite loop after 9.9 is also very elegant. This is one of my favorite things to see in game design: when the game mechanisms themselves express powerful imagery like this.

So now that I've thought about it for three paragraphs, let me amend what I started out saying: I really really like this mechanism a lot! My hat's off to you.

I'm curious about how you interpret ends versus means conflicts in advancing corruption. Let's suppose a character kills someone in order to save the lives of five others. Compared to just a plain murder for personal gain, would this act result in:

- less corruption gain, because your intentions were good.
- the same corruption gain, because it's the act itself that's important.
- more corruption gain, because your attitude that the end justifies the means is ultimately the path to deeper corruption.

Also, what would actually happen in play if someone went past the 9.9 limit into the infinite spiral?

- Walt