Characters falling into corruption, and player choice

[erithromycin]

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.

Well, you've got to look at the bigger picture. Why were those five lives saved? This isn't a balance sheet thing, it's an interpretation. What was the character's reason for a) killing this guy, and b) saving those five other guys.

Let's say killing this guy isn't the only way to save the other five. That's corrupt because it's taking a life for convenience.

Or let's say that saving these five guys is part of some malevolent plan. Off the top of my head, their continued existence lets him retain control of something like the local drugs trade. Hell, being in control of the local drugs trade is a corrupt act.

If there was a pseudomathematical formula for corruption gain, it works out as a larger as Convenient Evil [1], Degree, Enjoyment [2],and Evil Intent [3] increase.

So, um, Corruption Gain tends upwards as Convenience, Degree, Enjoyment, and Intent tend to Evil.

[1] If forced to choose between ensuring someone's silence [a witness to a potential breach of the Masquerade, say] there are a variety of means to do it. Those that save time because they're nasty increase Corruption.

[2] That's right. Like I've said elsewhere, 'Gleeful' is the fourth alignment. Gleeful Evil is High Corruption. It does mean, however, that characters with the Flaw Sadist tend to be more likely to gain Corruption, but that's true for me, so I guess that's somewhat realistic.

[3] Why you're doing the act. It's one thing to build a Hospital, it's another to build a Hospital to make it easier to acquire blood, dispose of bodies, and gain experimental subjects [Mwa-ha-ha]. One lets you lose Corruption, the other usually leads to a gain, depending on your current Corruption. That's the kind of thing you'd be looking at 4 or 5.

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

Let's assume they started at Corruption 2, which is where all freshly embraced Vampires in our game do. [4]

At 3, they gain a 3 point merit, a 3 point flaw, and a point in their highest discipline.

At 4, a merit at four, a flaw at four, and another point in a discipline. This, by the way, is in addition to XP gains and expenditure.

At 5 you get a free level of Daimonon in addition to everything else, and at six you get another, with a free level of Maleficia and a free level of Striga. You get quite nasty, see. You also start to get a bigger bloodpool at 5, gaining two points of storage with each level of Corruption.

So, anyway, at 9.9, you've got 42 points of flaw, which isn't insignificant. At this point you probably do all sorts of bad stuff to the surrounding area, merely by visiting. You've also gained 10 points of 'basic' disciplines, and 13 of even wiggier Corruption disciplines.

At 5.5, you're pretty much unplayable. A few people have managed to get that high, but then they all get killed. All of them. Even the NPCs. By the Players. Grr.

Anyway, at 6.6, you become an NPC if you live that long. If you want to, you could stretch this in your game, but after 9.9 that's it. You're trapped in the Infinite Corruption Loop. Depending on your game's cosmology, you could have them become a daemon, or something else, but in ours you're simply given over entirely to 'The Beast'. It's won. You're a creature permenantly in Frenzy. Always hungry, always angry, always running about killing things, any way you can. You're a creature, basically. You've lost. There's a chance for redemption at 9.9, but afterwards? There isn't one. As they say in the Lorien Trust, go directly to God and get a new character.

Ron,  I wasn't sure what kind of legal ground I stood on. The game uses the names, and some of the rules, but the system and background are different, and I'm not sure how flexible people like WW are from day to day. I like to worry. It makes my look younger.

erith -

[4] Most start freshly embraced. It actually killed twinking for a while at least, when people realised that if they brought a gangland killing machine to the game they'd end up bound to, sired by, and bodyguarding, a Ventrue, who wouldn't give them any free time. We did have a Toreador who ran a dancing school, but we also have a raft of Brujah lawyers and doctors. People tend to play better characters when they're forced to justify having been made a vampire.

[damion]

Erith,
      You hit on one of the two problems I have with corruption mechanics. Basicly it's relative vs absolute morality. Does it matter what you do, or does it matter why you do it? Absolute is pretty easy to encode into a mechanic as Valmir mentioned. Relative is a lot harder, as was mentioned. For instance if I reach for the darkside to save the planet AND my friend, why do I get corrupted for this?
(Or more appropriatly, why won't the friggin light side help me?)
   The other problem is you it tends to encourage Pawn stance a bit much. If I know 'If I do this, I'll loose my charachter' that is a good incentive not to do that. A gamist will avoid this for obvious reasons. A highly pure simulationist might do it, although the most likely outcome is for them to create charachters where this is not a problem.
A Narritivist might avoid it because it effectivly ends the story for them.  You can also run into problems with other players. I remember a Shadowrun game where a player got scratched by a vampire. They ended up hand of Goding because the other players basicly indicated that they would kill their characther.
My point is I prefer to avoid mechanices that put a players 'fun' in conflict with a characthers actions.

[erithromycin]

Basicly it's relative vs absolute morality. Does it matter what you do, or does it matter why you do it? Absolute is pretty easy to encode into a mechanic as Valmir mentioned. Relative is a lot harder, as was mentioned. For instance if I reach for the darkside to save the planet AND my friend, why do I get corrupted for this?

Well, I'd say it's because you were reaching for the dark side. Corruption can't get spent like Willpower to give you a success, though you can use it in place of Willpower to resist the effects of disciplines. [Your beast protects you, effectively]. The darkside, in Star Wars terms, means giving in to hate, rage, anger, and then lashing out. You're doing a bad thing, no matter the reasons. Intent tends to be an easier thing when you're talking about the other levels.

As to absolute and relative, both what and why are important. If you've only got one option, then killing someone isn't being done because it's the easiest thing to do, but because it's the only one.

However, please don't be under the impression that you can't do 'bad' things and not gain corruption. At 2 you're perfectly happy to take blood from people, at three you're willing to kill them, at four you'll have trouble avoiding it, and at five you'll actively enjoy it. By the time you hit three, killing an individual won't matter.

However, most gains in Corruption in our game come from people performing monstrous acts, like ghouling a random stranger so they can survive the torture a character inflicts as they try to get better at it. Or, as I said in the example, killing a boatload of immigrants to fuel a prolonged session of vampiric sex.

(Or more appropriatly, why won't the friggin light side help me?)

Well, performing good acts reduces your Corruption. The more corrupt you are the larger those acts must be, but that's part of the nature of guilt, no? In cases where someone's act is evil, but their intention is good, it's perfectly feasible to not hand out Corruption. It's a tool used to represent moral decay, and there isn't a hard and fast table to consult. Our game has 4 Storytellers, and things like this get discussed.

The other problem is you it tends to encourage Pawn stance a bit much. If I know 'If I do this, I'll loose my charachter' that is a good incentive not to do that.

Are you honestly saying that there being a penalty for playing characters who are monstrously corrupt is a bad thing? It's a real and lasting reminder that evil isn't a good idea. Look at the amount of attention we're paying to it as a concept, now imagine having to deal with it as a player. The mechanic enforces an awareness of morals, and gives players a chance to see how close to the edge they can get. If that's what they want.

A gamist will avoid this for obvious reasons.

Are you kidding? Doing bad things makes me more powerful, so, I'll do bad things. There's a limit, and people can try and push it, but there are ways and means to deal with it. At Corruption 5:9, our limit for Player Characters, it's possible for a Vampire to kill someone while feeding for fun and have no memory of the death, because it isn't important to them. Just move that moral relativism right along with them, and watch as they get themselves into trouble. That and being evil is fun, if, occasionally guilt inducing. Look at Violence Future.

A highly pure simulationist might do it, although the most likely outcome is for them to create charachters where this is not a problem.

You don't tend to get that many Simulationists in Vampire LARPs, at least, not our one. We're more focused on playability, and internal consistency. That latter might be a Sim concern, but I try to apply it everywhere.

A Narritivist might avoid it because it effectivly ends the story for them.  

They might, or they could embrace it, because it gives them a Narrative arc to build upon. How many heroes fall to Corruption? How many redeem themselves? How many people just want to be the bad guy?

You can also run into problems with other players. I remember a Shadowrun game where a player got scratched by a vampire. They ended up hand of Goding because the other players basicly indicated that they would kill their characther.

You must have missed the part where I said that every high Corruption character had been killed by the players. That's part of the challenge. I mean, come on, who hasn't wanted to try to outwit about thirty people every fortnight? Just because it's difficult doesn't mean it's not fun.

My point is I prefer to avoid mechanices that put a players 'fun' in conflict with a characthers actions.

So do I. Look, I think the worry about Pawn stance is removed because this is a LARP, as it's a little harder to treat a character as a seperate entity when you're wearing his skin. As for the 'fun' part, well, I think that doing battle with yourself can be quite entertaining, and so do many of my players. Those that don't avoid Corrupt acts, and still have fun anyway. Let's remember that the Premise of Vampire, and of our LARP, is, fundamentally, how do I cope with being a monster? Corruption's just a handy way of keeping track of said monstrousness.

erith -

[damion]

Erith,
      Sorry, wasn't trying to insult your system.  Actually, I like it, although I know very little about Vampire. My comments mostly related to systems where the corruption was final and fairly quick. I.e. no fall and redemption story.
      Also, my comments were for characthers get corruption due to mechanical rather than story issues. If I slaughter storm troopers with the light side while pentrating the death star it's ok, but if I do it with the darkside to save the planet, I'm evil? My point is that you can end up with some weird situations. Probably some sort of initial social contract would clear this up.

     If I understand your system correctly, vampires don't gain corruption in down time. At high levels they may kill & torture people without explic player concent(i.e. do stuff comiserate with their level of corruption) i.e. any gain requires some sort of action.

Are you honestly saying that there being a penalty for playing characters who are monstrously corrupt is a bad thing? It's a real and lasting reminder that evil isn't a good idea. Look at the amount of attention we're paying to it as a concept, now imagine having to deal with it as a player. The mechanic enforces an awareness of morals, and gives players a chance to see how close to the edge they can get. If that's what they want.

Fully agree here. It becomes problematic when corruption is necessary. To use your system(I'm not saying your system is like this, in fact, it probably isnt). A Corruption 2.0 vampire
will be much less effective than a more Corrup one of equal experiance(or whatever vampire has). While being the morally upright, but weaker vampire has a certian charm, it's not a big niche. As, if I understand things right, not only will a uncorrupt vampire have less abilities, but the ones they have will tend to bounce off more, because Corruption affects resistance. (Or maybe I misunderstood).

It's a rather interesting problem actually. (Hmm, giving in to the beast makes me better, but...) It does make the whole moral seesay thing more explict. How far will you go?
Out of curiosity, what is the 'minimum' corruption for a vampire. I mean, you gotta feed, right?

[erithromycin]

      Also, my comments were for characthers get corruption due to mechanical rather than story issues. If I slaughter storm troopers with the light side while pentrating the death star it's ok, but if I do it with the darkside to save the planet, I'm evil? My point is that you can end up with some weird situations. Probably some sort of initial social contract would clear this up.

A jedi would have the decency to angst, no? Anyway, in Star Wars the thing to remember is that Jedi are trapped by the dark side. To give in once is to invite its temptation again and again. Star Wars is about moral absolutes, as far as the Force is concerned. There is no grey.

Sorry if I seemed to overreact, it's just our rules have been slammed by former players for encouraging powergaming, and destroying play balance in favour of older/corrupt characters. Which isn't an issue, as far as I'm concerned. They are just better.

As for social contract, I don't think so. If there may be complex issues generated by mechanics, it's almost always better to try and fix the mechanics. Or, indeed, to examine the issues, and see if they're caused by your perception, rather than the goals of the system. As far as Star Wars is concerned, for example, the Dark Side is just bad. That's it. A Corruption system like this one avoids that, just about, by giving you some grey to play in first.

If I understand your system correctly, vampires don't gain corruption in down time. At high levels they may kill & torture people without explic player concent(i.e. do stuff comiserate with their level of corruption) i.e. any gain requires some sort of action.

I think you meant commensurate, but I get your drift. Vampires don't gain Corruption without performing a corrupt act, though that act may be inaction. Vampires do act in downtime, and to be honest, that's where most gains occur, but that's a factor of time. They play for about five hours a fortnight, and their downtime actions cover the other 163 in a week.

A Corruption 2.0 vampire
will be much less effective than a more Corrup one of equal experiance(or whatever vampire has). While being the morally upright, but weaker vampire has a certian charm, it's not a big niche. As, if I understand things right, not only will a uncorrupt vampire have less abilities, but the ones they have will tend to bounce off more, because Corruption affects resistance. (Or maybe I misunderstood).

The less Corrupt vampire will, as I said, be less powerful that one of equal age/experience. Their advantage comes from the fact that they've got less flaws and their actions are less confined. Corruption doesn't affect resistance directly. It can be used in place of Willpower [for example to resist Dominate] and it powers some Disciplines [Like bits of Serpentis], but resisting with Corruption causes you to gain Corruption, so you're stuck in a loop.

It's a rather interesting problem actually. (Hmm, giving in to the beast makes me better, but...) It does make the whole moral seesay thing more explict. How far will you go?

Exactly. Dancing with devils, and all that. Only, the devil is you!. Neat, huh?

Out of curiosity, what is the 'minimum' corruption for a vampire. I mean, you gotta feed, right?

Assuming that you have no ghouls, don't use your disciplines, don't Frenzy, eat only blood donated willingly for you to eat or take it in a humane way from animals without killing them and they're kept in good conditions, you might be able to hover at 1:9.

erith -

[Valamir]

The less Corrupt vampire will, as I said, be less powerful that one of equal age/experience. Their advantage comes from the fact that they've got less flaws and their actions are less confined.

This was addressed perfectly in the old Forever Knight TV show.  The main character, a Vampire Cop trying to stay human.  He wasn't nearly as tough when he was trying to play nice as he was when he gave into the beast, drank some real blood and kicked ass.  And then spent the next 3 episodes mooning over how much progress he'd lost.

[Lance D. Allen]

Assuming that you have no ghouls, don't use your disciplines, don't Frenzy, eat only blood donated willingly for you to eat or take it in a humane way from animals without killing them and they're kept in good conditions, you might be able to hover at 1:9.

Which assumes that it is impossible for a vampire to be less corrupt than a human? I don't think I like that. Vampires are corrupt by their very nature ("A beast I am, lest a beast I become" and all that) but so are humans, according to some beliefs. Either way, it is possible for a strong individual to go the other way.. I've always liked the possibility for Golconda in my games.

I'd suggest, create some potential in the other direction, that 2.0 be the center point, which any vampire who tries to be good will hover around naturally. To go below, however, would take some doing, but it would be possible.. Possible even to drop to 0.1 (never below, of course). It would change the focus of the setting slightly, in that they wouldn't be facing their inner beast, but instead the outer beasts which will try to pull them down into corruption again. There should even be some small amount of gain involved in being that low on the corruption scale, though it should be paltry compared to the offerings of deep corruption (all the powers, etc.)

[erithromycin]

There's nothing to stop a person from having Corruption 5. They just don't get extra power from it. So it is possible to be less Corrupt than some humans straight off.

Corruption is also a measure of how powerful the Beast is within you, so as a Vampire, it means not using any of your Vampiric powers. Not feeding is kind of hard, but there's a merit that allows you to feed from emotions. If you make sure they're good ones, yes, you could probably get below 1, but then you're in a strange place.

As it goes, most people have a Corruption of 1:5, and most Vampires have a Corruption of 2:5. By their very nature Vampires are more corrupt than people, more given to the Beast within. Of course, that's just how it is in my game. If you want to do it differently, feel free.

Just to clarify, by the way, you only gain powers going up into a new Corruption level once, if you backslide, and come back up, you don't get anything. There's no power-up respawn for evildoing and then remorse.

erith -