Elegant Corruption?

[whisperwind1]

Hey all, I'm running a Way of the Wicked campaign and I recently got into an argument with one of my players. See their character is a corruptor, someone who tempts folks over to the dark side, and intellectually I appreciate the idea. However in practice it comes off as "Oh hey I totally screwed you over or indirectly ruined your life. But i'm gonna help you and be nice to you now and you'll have my Dark God to thank!" The roleplaying always feels hamfisted to me, like I as a person cannot conceive of this working, no matter how high the player rolls. As a result the NPC reacts negatively, effectively stonewalling the player's efforts to turn them.

Of course I know a player isn't as persuasive as they envision their character to be, and I shouldn't hold it against them. I also realize that a roll of 30 on Diplomacy does not get the NPC to fanatically devoted to evil. My player sportingly suggested to enact the corruption in steps, gradually working on the NPC until they turn evil. Its a good idea, but I also don't want every corruption to take all day, if you can dig it.

To that end, what would be a good system for tracking an NPC's gradual slide towards the dark side? I was thinking of a corruption track similar to Dark Heresy, but not quite so long (again, i'd like to keep a good pace in game). Do you guys have any suggestions?

P.S. The corruption RP is something this player looks forward to, it their personal spotlight and campaign project. So I don't want them to feel like every corruption is samey or goes by too fast (the latter was complained about).

[Vaz]

Do you force a player playing a wizard to actually cast spells? Do you require a player playing a barbarian to be able to break steel manacles with ease and cut through a metre thick tree with one blow. Do you require the person playing a vegetarian Druid to not eat the pepperoni pizza?

People roleplay because of many reasons. I like playing the social characters because it allows me to be friendly and act in a manmer where my personality and job requires me to be otherwise in real life. I sarcastically/ironically say I'm a Capricorn as if that makes it all alright. Being able to play at being nice, without actually having to sit down and do the small talk in a strange way amuses me.

A wizard can choose to not die because reasons, but a high level mundane diplomat has an RP tax? Unfair, in my mind.

[whisperwind1]

Do you force a player playing a wizard to actually cast spells? Do you require a player playing a barbarian to be able to break steel manacles with ease and cut through a metre thick tree with one blow. Do you require the person playing a vegetarian Druid to not eat the pepperoni pizza?

People roleplay because of many reasons. I like playing the social characters because it allows me to be friendly and act in a manmer where my personality and job requires me to be otherwise in real life. I sarcastically/ironically say I'm a Capricorn as if that makes it all alright. Being able to play at being nice, without actually having to sit down and do the small talk in a strange way amuses me.

A wizard can choose to not die because reasons, but a high level mundane diplomat has an RP tax? Unfair, in my mind.

I'm not actually sure what you mean here. Are you suggesting that I should let the character roleplay and make his roll, end of story? Because neither I nor the player want it to be done in one like that.

[noob]

It could be worse for example if the player used hypnotism over and over until the target is convinced.
Or if he did used domination and tried to put him in a situation where he gets killed if he does not fight back someone good and cancelled domination and then just waited for seeing him become evil because justice hates him and so make of it an hated outlaw.
There is way to oversimplify conversion that should be absolutely avoided like taking an alignment change helmet and put it on the head of an good guy then remove it then put it back and restart until he becomes evil.

[atemu1234]

It could be worse for example if the player used hypnotism over and over until the target is convinced.
Or if he did used domination and tried to put him in a situation where he gets killed if he does not fight back someone good and cancelled domination and then just waited for seeing him become evil because justice hates him and so make of it an hated outlaw.
There is way to oversimplify conversion that should be absolutely avoided like taking an alignment change helmet and put it on the head of an good guy then remove it then put it back and restart until he becomes evil.

I do agree, evil and good shouldn't be black and white. There are many shades of grey.

[Nibbens]

I do agree, evil and good shouldn't be black and white. There are many shades of grey.

More than 50, definitely! LOL.

Anyway, this may take some time, but construct a basic vice/virtue table. What motivates the NPC to do good and what motivates the NPC to do bad. If the corrupter RPs the urging of whatever sin the NPC indulges in, then he can successfully turn him. If the corrupter never brings up the sin during his "urging" then he fails to turn the NPC.

This will work as long as the PC doesn't know exactly what you're doing. As soon as he knows "This NPC needs to be urged into "Wrath" to get him to turn, then I can just spam the "Wrath" button until he turns." This you don't want.

[daremetoidareyo]

Have you ever seen a commercial that was specifically designed to bilk gullible people? Have you ever seen or encountered what was obviously a scam? The only reason those things exist is because they work. Not on you, cuz your smart enough to know better, but by the numbers, scammers don't spend their time scamming to come home with empty pockets. Hell, politicians are a pure example: so much fakery, yet people buy obvious insincerity. So you do need to suspend at least a little of your lens to allow some of the people that your PC interacts with to be fallible, gullible, and corruptible.


Maybe introduce a new dynamic. The corrupter can have one "main focus" and one "side project" per two or three HD (minimum 1 of each). The main focus needs a roleplay element to fix the corruption to them. The main focus can work purely mechanically if you want, or, be a blend of circumstance modifiers (failed bluff check about killing their parents =-4 PC is obviously trying to rush them to a decision and they passed their sense motive check another -2 penalty) that can be altered by how the player maneuvers themselves and their logic. If you haven't already, see this: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=9606632&postcount=2 Which will help both you and the PC deal with diplomacy rules with no problem. You get full experience from corrupting a main focus. Once you choose a main focus, you cannot choose or promote another until you definitively fail to corrupt or successfully corrupt them. You should work out with the PC what failure looks like. The main focus can be any character that the PC interacts with except for other PCs; whose corruption is entirely governed through roleplay.


Side projects are people that the corrupter has stumbled by, introduced themselves to, and decided that were weak willed, weak minded, and easy to corrupt. I would put a HD limit on side projects, probably no project higher than PC character level -2 and no lower than PC level -6, minimum of 1. There should be a scaling 10% per PC class level of a side project having an elite stat array. These people operate purely mechanically and can be upgraded to main focus whenever the PC wants. They can be corrupted over the course of a week(/month?) by simply making rolls with the PC stating what tradeoffs she is offering to make these people more evil.
Seeing as how they are circumstantial waiting in wings type characters, I would grab a bunch of prerolled ditties, assign names and various jobs around town, and let the corrupter choose 2/3s of them, where you choose the other 1/3 and these will be the side projects. That way the corrupter can appraise them for worth: e.g. warrior 4/warblade 1 town guard lieutenant is a juicy treat. This way, the bullpen is stocked for the next project, you can interject plot characters (or duds) into this bullpen, and some the corruption process is begun offscreen. You get half experience from corrupting side projects (which already have a low CR) by making weekly/monthly rolls. Promoting them to main focus increases their CR by some amount because now the process is non-mechanical and requires PC decision making, quick wit, and design.

At halfway through the class levels of whatever class the PC is engaged in, I would allow them to have a second main focus. They can also spend 2 skills points during any level up for an optional skill trick that grants an extra side project. This skill trick is a prerequisite for another skill trick which will add an additional main focus. (Feats are too much of a tax, but making it an optional trade off will make the character think about it). Seeing as how any or all of this is new, I would allow the PC to retrain some old skills to add the new side project in as a one time immediate thing.

[noob]

Your system improved in nothing the elegance of corruption.
I think that finding an elegant corruption needs first that you get a lot of information from the person and that you become his friend for a long time before trying to corrupt him.
And that it is case per case.
Also do not try to corrupt power hungry people because they are already corrupt in fact most of the time you should try to corrupt the people who are the less likely to get corrupt by himself.

[atemu1234]

More than 50, definitely! LOL.

This has made me surprisingly angry.

[whisperwind1]

Maybe introduce a new dynamic. The corrupter can have one "main focus" and one "side project" per two or three HD (minimum 1 of each). The main focus needs a roleplay element to fix the corruption to them. The main focus can work purely mechanically if you want, or, be a blend of circumstance modifiers (failed bluff check about killing their parents =-4 PC is obviously trying to rush them to a decision and they passed their sense motive check another -2 penalty) that can be altered by how the player maneuvers themselves and their logic. If you haven't already, see this: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=9606632&postcount=2 Which will help both you and the PC deal with diplomacy rules with no problem. You get full experience from corrupting a main focus. Once you choose a main focus, you cannot choose or promote another until you definitively fail to corrupt or successfully corrupt them. You should work out with the PC what failure looks like. The main focus can be any character that the PC interacts with except for other PCs; whose corruption is entirely governed through roleplay.

All this is amazing (and thank you for pitching it!), but it might be a little too gamey for the player's (and my) tastes. Realistically i think the player would like to corrupt characters at least semi-regularly, but it needs to be more involved than simply a die roll (that's part of the original problem). The main focus you pitched is pretty close to what I thought would be good, but I don't know that there needs to be HD cap for this sort of thing. Also this wouldn't be an EXP thing, but purely for the character's own RP.

But your first paragraph is very true and its a good mindset to have.

[whisperwind1]

Having read the rule at http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=9606632&postcount=2 I can kinda see how it would help in my game. Although in this case things are a bit abstract, I mean its not a "deal" or a "proposal" that my player is trying to do. They're trying to convince NPCs to embrace the worship of demonic powers, or at the very least, to be better disposed towards the idea (religious conversion basically). Like "Oh i've solved your problem, but don't thank me for it, thank the old powers and their mercy". As a result the risk vs. reward modifiers feel inappropriate (comparatively) because the person might not technically be offered anything, and is just being called upon to worship a proscribed faith. Granted its risky to forswear orthodox gods for demon lords, and one could be offered rewards for loyal service, but its not really a "deal" at all. Any ideas on how to modify this?

Furthermore I've discussed the matter with the player, and they tell me their character is convinced that they are justified in corrupting others. The rationale being that the character sincerely believes that people would be better off worshiping their demonic patron. As a result they player doesn't consider their attempts to turn NPCs as being a deception or a scam, and should not be treated as such by NPCs. I told them that most good-aligned (of which there are many in the Adventure Path) folks would probably not take well to bluntly being asked to worship a proscribed demon lord, and so deception and "sugarcoating" is probably called for. They argue that this view is pretty black and white, which I don't really understand. Are they implying that characters in the setting are unaware of the metagame rule that demon lords are evil and worshiping them begets eternal damnation? Therefore I as the DM should not have the NPCs react in horror or distaste at the idea of swearing allegiance to demon lords? Or is this a case of "No one considers themselves to be evil" and so, most worshipers of the demon lords would not consider what they do as being "evil"?

[ZamielVanWeber]

I told them that most good-aligned (of which there are many in the Adventure Path) folks would probably not take well to bluntly being asked to worship a proscribed demon lord, and so deception and "sugarcoating" is probably called for. They argue that this view is pretty black and white, which I don't really understand. Are they implying that characters in the setting are unaware of the metagame rule that demon lords are evil and worshiping them begets eternal damnation? Therefore I as the DM should not have the NPCs react in horror or distaste at the idea of swearing allegiance to demon lords? Or is this a case of "No one considers themselves to be evil" and so, most worshipers of the demon lords would not consider what they do as being "evil"?

Most good-aligned people would never have heard of demon lords. (No Knowledge: The Planes? No knowledge of demon lords. Religion could theoretically substitute). Demon Lords are a lot more obscure than evil gods; this is part of what makes them so dangerous.

Gods have all sorts of rules that they follow when dealing with followers (divine spells go to certain classes [people with training] only and can only be used in specific ways to call upon your deity). Demon Lords? They can just straight up give you what you want, "no questions asked."

A good point about corruption: the people should not know they can doing acts in favor of a demon lord. Fiendish Codes I put this well, but in general when you are offered explicit power from a corrupter, such as would be gained from direct worship, you are in so deep that you have no choice but to accept their offer.

[whisperwind1]

Most good-aligned people would never have heard of demon lords. (No Knowledge: The Planes? No knowledge of demon lords. Religion could theoretically substitute). Demon Lords are a lot more obscure than evil gods; this is part of what makes them so dangerous.

Gods have all sorts of rules that they follow when dealing with followers (divine spells go to certain classes [people with training] only and can only be used in specific ways to call upon your deity). Demon Lords? They can just straight up give you what you want, "no questions asked."

A good point about corruption: the people should not know they can doing acts in favor of a demon lord. Fiendish Codes I put this well, but in general when you are offered explicit power from a corrupter, such as would be gained from direct worship, you are in so deep that you have no choice but to accept their offer.

That's a very good point actually, and Knowledge skills are explicitly incapable of being rolled untrained. So yeah if it doesn't say knowledge the planes in an NPC's statblock (or knowledge religion), then its perfectly reasonable to assume they don't know about demon lords. They probably are only aware of the basics of the religion they were raised in (which to my knowledge, doesn't go into the specifics of evil and its servants).

Although to your second point, I think the player wants people to know the demon lord is there to help them, and is improving their situations. So perhaps they can just avoid mentioning they are a demon lord, and the NPC would be all for it until its far too late to back out.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Although to your second point, I think the player wants people to know the demon lord is there to help them, and is improving their situations. So perhaps they can just avoid mentioning they are a demon lord, and the NPC would be all for it until its far too late to back out.

AFAIK demon lords have no qualms with being worshipped as gods and some would even relish being mistaken for benign deities.

"Who is Pazuzu? Just a minor god that delights in lending aid to the innocent and oppressed. He doesn't have a big fancy doctrine or piles of temples. He takes delight in interacting on a more personal level with his worshippers. Ask him and I am sure he will be happy to lend his aid. Let me show you how."

The only untrue word of that was calling Pazuzu a god. By the time that they find out that Pazuzu is a demon lord who delights in the corruption of the innocent their innocence will be long since gone.

[noob]

Yes but it is not really the player corrupting the people it is Pazuzu so they participated less in the corruption of the target that if they did it themselves.
also once you said three times his name and see it you might see by his speech that it is not a good idea to do the contract except if you were already willing-full to be corrupted to a point where without Pazuzu you would already fallen to the evil alignment some years after by your own hunger for power.
Pazuzu quicken the corruption but it would happen without him
In fact people you have corrupted with the pazuzu argument were people you would not need to corrupt.
Wtill if you want souls quick it is a good idea.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Yes but it is not really the player corrupting the people it is Pazuzu so they participated less in the corruption of the target that if they did it themselves.
In this example I am courting the people to the worship of Pazuzu. He is doing nothing except enjoying the show, if even.


also once you said three times his name and see it you might see by his speech that it is not a good idea to do the contract except if you were already willing-full to be corrupted to a point where without Pazuzu you would already fallen to the evil alignment some years after by your own hunger for power.
First off you need to know to say his name three times in succession. Then he needs to decide to respond (highly unlikely in this scenario). Also the people he responds to are not people who call to him for power but those who call to him for help. He is a consummate corrupter.

Pazuzu quicken the corruption but it would happen without him
No they would not. That is the entire point of Pazuzu.

In fact people you have corrupted with the pazuzu argument were people you would not need to corrupt.
Wtill if you want souls quick it is a good idea.

Yes, they are. The innocent are the people he and his minions target and they are the ones who will never be coupled without an outside force.

[whisperwind1]

Yes, they are. The innocent are the people he and his minions target and they are the ones who will never be coupled without an outside force.

In my campaign's case, the player's character is a devout worshipper of Abraxas, who himself is patron over forces that can be construed as morally positive (in a certain way). So it actually makes corruption easier than say, if they were a servant of Baphomet or whatever.

[ZamielVanWeber]

In my campaign's case, the player's character is a devout worshipper of Abraxas, who himself is patron over forces that can be construed as morally positive (in a certain way). So it actually makes corruption easier than say, if they were a servant of Baphomet or whatever.
In that case, let me think a moment...
If this were 3.5 I would say pact magic and done. The canon response of established churches to pact magic is pretty grim. You would not be corrupting the people you teach pact magic to (although snagging them would be cool) but rather the people who persecute people for the crime of knowledge. If you are really lucky Abraxas can become the one stop shop for binders and paladins will fall!

But since the fluff is not there it won'the work. The idea is valid though: offer them some minor magical trinkets, perhaps an easy ritual or two. Let them learn to trust you. Eventually give them trickier rituals that maybe require a drop of sentient blood or an animal sacrifice and go from there.

[(Un)Inspired]

This has made me surprisingly angry.

Angry enough to spank somebody?