Dark Heresy Corruption question

[Grifthin]

Last session I tortured a Heretic for information. All I did was cut his achillies tendons (I didn't have rope or anything handy and he kept trying to escape). The party took Offense to this and ended up killing the prisoner in "mercy". We almost died because we walked into a situation where we didn't know how many enemies there would be. The DM assigned me a corruption point - now normally those only get given for rending the veil between realities, trafficking with daemons, sorcery etc. Now there's not much I can do about it, but do you guys think it was reasonable ?

I mean we can order a planet sterilized from orbit to kill a dozen people, killing millions of innocents and that's fine, but me interrogating 1 dude gets cries of outrage ?

[Lycan 01]

He was a Heretic, right?

If anything, they should have gotten Corruption points for showing mercy to a Heretic, while you deserve XP for actually taking steps in the right direction towards becoming a real Inquisitor.

You see, the Inquisition doesn't play fair. They don't show mercy. They don't apologize. They are willing to step on toes, bend the rules, and otherwise get their hands dirty. When you see your GM again, tell him that yes, you should have gotten a Corruption Point - you took your time to willingly touch a Heretic and be in close proximity to a servant of the Ruinous Powers. But your comrades... they helped a servant of Chaos. Which is the greater sin, I ask you? And indeed, you should ask him. And be sure to mention this quote, since its just awesome:

"Men must die so that Man may endure."


Talkkno has an even better monologue on the subject. I'm sure he'll post it eventually.

[Grifthin]

"Men must die so that Man may endure."

That's actually my character's divination when I created him.

[Kaun]

“He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”

[MickJay]

Yep, you shouldn't have gotten a corruption point for that. In fact, with attitudes like this, the rest of your group would never even be considered to join the Inquisition. And I don't think your GM knows the setting very well, either. Suggest to them Dan Abnett's Eisenhorn, the titular character has some interesting thoughts about what being an inquisitor actually means.

Corruption should not be used to reflect "evil actions", but contact with and dealings with Chaos alone. After all, you don't see people grow tentacles or becoming huge slugs for doing evil things, and corruption does make one mutate eventually.

[Sindri]

Showing "mercy" to heretics is heresy. The rest of your group have proven themselves to be heretics, and had the gall to admit it to your face. You know what to do.

[Grifthin]

*smiles broadly at Sindri's idea*

[Comet]

Sounds like your GM is mistaking Corruption points for Dark Side/ Closed Fist/ Evil points, doesn't it?

Corruption is a semi-physical, fully real threat, not some moral dilemma. Maiming heretics is what keeps the corruption away.

So, yeah. Your GM is missing the point, hard.

[Kaun]

As long as he didnt take pleasure in the maiming.

[Grifthin]

Nope - it's all about practicality.

[Surrealistik]

Your GM is wrong. Does cutting the heretic's achilles tendon involve any kind of Warp taint? Did you do it at the bequest or under the direct influence of a Daemon or Ruinous Power? No? Then absolutely no Corruption should apply.

[Zen Master]

Heh - well I disagree with everyone else here. But then I'll just pipe in on the opposite front.

In my view, first of all you're not the Inquisition. Not an inquisitor. You are a mere hireling. Just like the doorman outside the casino isn't the mafia or the don - so you're not the inquisitor or the inquisition.

You maimed a guy who knew nothing (well, presumably) - well the inquisition can be harsh, but it does not endorse random pointless cruelty. You should have shot the heretic - possibly after mind probing him - but unless you had solid reasons to suspect he had information, you should have known torture is the most unreliable way of getting intel.

Corruption is not only about chaos taint - it is just as much about morals and evil. When you torture someone for no reason, gaining nothing except the needless suffering of one individual, that qualifies for an evil act.

A small one - maybe worth around 1 corruption point.

In reality, it's really up to the GM. Interpretations of the fluff vary, as this thread shows (well, with my interpretation being the variation here), but I guess your GM was signalling how he interprets it?

[Comet]

Heh - well I disagree with everyone else here. But then I'll just pipe in on the opposite front.

In my view, first of all you're not the Inquisition. Not an inquisitor. You are a mere hireling. Just like the doorman outside the casino isn't the mafia or the don - so you're not the inquisitor or the inquisition.

You maimed a guy who knew nothing (well, presumably) - well the inquisition can be harsh, but it does not endorse random pointless cruelty. You should have shot the heretic - possibly after mind probing him - but unless you had solid reasons to suspect he had information, you should have known torture is the most unreliable way of getting intel.

Corruption is not only about chaos taint - it is just as much about morals and evil. When you torture someone for no reason, gaining nothing except the needless suffering of one individual, that qualifies for an evil act.

A small one - maybe worth around 1 corruption point.

In reality, it's really up to the GM. Interpretations of the fluff vary, as this thread shows (well, with my interpretation being the variation here), but I guess your GM was signalling how he interprets it?

You can definetly houserule it that way if you want a a way to measure a character's morality in a game.

The rulebook itself, however, makes it pretty clear that Corruption is all about the Warp and the Daemon, unless I'm reading it terribly wrong. The only part about 'evil' acts causing corruption is written to be caused by characters doing questionable things to further their knowledge of the forbidden or some other such chaos-related stuff.

So, by the book, Corruption with a capital C is not just any corruption. It's very specific corruption of the soul that happens when Dark Stuff Goes Down. You don't get mutations just by being evil. At least that's the impression I got when re-reading the rulebook just now.

[Surrealistik]

You can definetly houserule it that way if you want a a way to measure a character's morality in a game.

The rulebook itself, however, makes it pretty clear that Corruption is all about the Warp and the Daemon, unless I'm reading it terribly wrong. The only part about 'evil' acts causing corruption is written to be caused by characters doing questionable things to further their knowledge of the forbidden or some other such chaos-related stuff.

So, by the book, Corruption with a capital C is not just any corruption. It's very specific corruption of the soul that happens when Dark Stuff Goes Down. You don't get mutations just by being evil. At least that's the impression I got when re-reading the rulebook just now.

This. You only gain Corruption for depraved acts if it's an act of Chaos worship/in the name of a Ruinous Power or Daemon, involves tainted participants, artifacts or locales, etc..

[Leeham]

He may not be an Inquisitor, but he is an imperial citizen, and I'm sure there's a line in the Imperial Creed about "suffer not the heretic to live". And the tendon thing was pure practicality. And I agree with Conjob, just being evil doesn't cause mutations. I mean, the Inquisition's not overflowing with mutant members, and they get up to some pretty evil stuff.

[Mr.Moron]

Torture doesn't really warrant corruption as written, unless you're torturing someone to get information on how to summon daemons or something.

That said torture is just a plain bad idea because as someone said it just gets you unreliable information. Going into a potentially dangerous situation of information extracted by torture is risky at best.

EDIT: Also don't forget page 10. "All the ideas and rules are tools as they see fit. The GM is the ultimate arbitrator of the rule sand may choose to modify, amend, or even ignore certain rules to better suit the playing style of your group"

If your group is the type put off by torture, it's not unreasonable for their to be mechanics to discourage it. GRIMDARK or not the game is about having fun and making it a positive experience for those participating.

[Comet]

If your group is the type put off by torture, it's not unreasonable for their to be mechanics to discourage it. GRIMDARK or not the game is about having fun and making it a positive experience for those participating.

Actually, that's an interesting point.

Y'see, in my mind, setting a mechanical value to any action (be it positive or negative) is actually making that action a part of the game. If there's a rule for it, one would expect it to be a part of the game in some way.

So, if you set rules for torture and its consequences, I would kinda expect those rules to be used at some point in the game. As a result, I'm expecting torture to be within the thematic range of the game.

I think things like this are better left to roleplaying/Out of Character interaction. I'm not a huge fan of putting numbers on morality.
Insanity and Corruption are relatively easily measured things that actually affect the character in fairly unambigious ways. Good/Evil, on the other hand, are not and as such are better left to the players to judge.

I do agree with you, only with a slight twist of methods. Fun comes first, as you said.

[LCP]

I think people are possibly jumping to conclusions a little bit.

Insanity and Corruption are relatively easily measured things that actually affect the character in fairly unambigious ways.

I GM a lot of Warhammer, and the most fun thing about Chaos by far is being as ambiguous and subtle about corruption as possible. People don't fall to Chaos by opening a big book of 'Daemonic Dabbling For Dummies' and deciding that today would be a fun day to burn down the universe (or at least, most of the time they don't). Chaos sidles its way in by the back doors of the mind, twisting human emotions and drives to their extremes in ways that the victim may not even notice.

Read flatly, yeah, in your GM's shoes I wouldn't have given you a Corruption Point for that. But your post is very light on details, and I can easily imagine omitted details for which I would:

• If your character chose torture as a first resort when there were other, equally effective methods available (seriously, the only way to prevent this guy from escaping was to cut his Achilles' tendons?)
• If your character volunteered to do the torturing themselves when there were 'professionals' standing by.
• If your character seemed to be motivated to torture the captive by other reasons than pursuit of the information (revenge, sadism, etc).

I can't know what went on, but any of the above (or a panoply of similar things) would strike me, as GM, as a gateway for the Ruinous Powers into your mind: Khorne or Slaanesh in particular. And a measly 1 Corruption Point would seem pretty appropriate - just representing the beginnings of a shadow in the warp forming around your character's psychoses, egging them on.

The Imperium's a big, horrible place, and yeah, torture is totally A-OK with the Inquisition, and a big part of its modus operandi. That doesn't mean that individual torturers can't be twisted by their trade - and in the 40K universe, that kind of personality is a beacon for all sorts of Chaos fun times, if the Warp decides to take an interest.

[Comet]

Those are very good points. Having a character gain the attention of ruinous powers due to his actions makes sense within the context of the world. It wouldn't be unreasonable to rule that this attention comes with a point or two of Corruption.

But still, it would be a houserule. I would personally leave the subtle changes to roleplaying and reserve the actual Corruption mechanics for more clear-cut unnatural events that literally tear the character's integrity apart.

The important thing, to me, is making sure the GM understands that Corruption points are not Dark Side points from Bioware's Star Wars games. You aren't turned to chaos by being needlessly violent and ruthless. Sometimes sacrifices need to be made and sometimes the characters make bad calls or do not think straight.
These are all great roleplaying opportunities, but I don't think a morality meter fits into the world of Dark Heresy. Every point of Corruption should be given out with a lot of thought for the themes of the particular game the GM is running.

[LCP]

But still, it would be a houserule.

If I can quote the beginning of the section on Corruption:

The exact level of Corruption Points inflicted by a certain event, revelation or encounter is determined by the GM. The following presents some guidelines:

And that's it. Everything that follows is guidelines, up until you get to what Corruption Points actually do. Even the guidelines given are fairly loose: to cleave as closely to the text of the rulebook as possible, you still need a hefty dose of GM interpretation to use Corruption Points at all. They're not a simple mechanic like, say, shooting a gun.

That being said:

I would personally leave the subtle changes to roleplaying and reserve the actual Corruption mechanics for more clear-cut unnatural events that literally tear the character's integrity apart.

That seems a completely valid interpretation to me, and when you say

The important thing, to me, is making sure the GM understands that Corruption points are not Dark Side points from Bioware's Star Wars games.

I couldn't agree more. Chaos isn't about good vs. bad, for sure.

In my example above, that would be if I, as GM, had decided I was going to take on the role of Chaos sensing potential in a particularly psychopathic PC (or maybe in a disciplined and heroic PC who showed the potential for a catastrophic collapse into Chaos), and have the Warp play Mephistopheles to their Faust. It wouldn't be every time someone did something 'bad': otherwise every two-bit murderer and thief in the Imperium would be running about with seven heads and tentacles.

[Grifthin]

Ok, well some details then: our inquisitor had been tried and executed for heresy. We where given a new mission from our replacement inquisitor, but on getting into our guncutter the doors where sealed and gas released. We all where knocked unconcious.

After this we woke up in a a great pit where gladatorial combat was fought between slaves. All our equipment was gone. Thanks to some rapid planning and luck we managed to escape the pit and overpower one of the guards.

We are almost completely naked inside a hostile enemy fortress on a planet we don't know (no idea where), on a continent somewhere and our inquisitor has betrayed us (we think).

Long story short - we snuck down the halls, scavenged what we could and ended up fighting a coupla guards. We killed all except for one - He kept trying to escape. We had no rope or any other equipment and he kept trying to get away. I simply disabled him by cutting the tendons because it was the easiest way to do it. Then because we where butt naked with a unknown number of not-so nice people around us I interrogated him to find out where our equipment would likely be, how many guards there are likely to be, what planet this is and who he works for. We already tried intimidation before this but he proved unimpressed (we didn't really look all that scary at this point, you know naked and filthy and all).

It was amidst the last of these questions where the party killed him in "mercy". Was that sufficient justification for the actions ?

[Surrealistik]

I don't see the problem, nor anything that merits Corruption points. Bottom line, as mentioned repeatedly above, Corruption points for merely evil acts would see the Imperium lost to Chaos countless times over.

[Zen Master]

I'd say the description in the book makes enough mention of chaos and warp to emphasize that corruption is mainly to do with those things. However, it certainly also mentions evil, and morals. Hence, a very minor corruption like 1 point is completely valid by how I read the text.

Further, as I said the GM decides how grim and dark he wants his campaign. Personally, I'd fint needless torture silly, and punish it in far more subtle ways than corruption points (such as the captive who was killed being needed alive at a later date), but that's another thing.

[Talkkno]

Talkkno has an even better monologue on the subject. I'm sure he'll post it eventually.

"Do you think me weak, flawed? Do you hate me for setting my
inquisitorial role above the needs of one agonised being?
If you do, I commend you. I think of that woman still, and hate the
fact I left her to die slowly. But if you hate me, I know this about
you... you are no inquisitor. You don't have the moral strength.
I could have finished her, and my soul might have been relieved. But
that would have been an end to my work. And I always think of me
thousands... millions perhaps... who would die worse deaths but for my
actions.
Is that arrogance?
Perhaps... and perhaps arrogance is therefore a virtue of the
Inquisition. I would gladly ignore one life in agony if I could save a
hundred, a thousand, more...
Mankind must suffer so that mankind can survive. It's that simple."
-Eisenhorn.

On the subject of Chaos-

Imagine all the stupid stuff that gets in your way on your average day; the lights always turn red when you need to be somewhere, a tiny screw falls out of your glasses making the lens fall out, ... then one day you're visiting a little shop full of nick-knacks and the wizened old guy behind the counter gives you a Tzeentch-imbued penny. He says that yeah, it's warp-tainted, but it's only mild, it'll fix your luck for you.

The next day, you're driving through a city, you rub the penny, and all the traffic lights you come to are green. The guy before you giving a presentation leaves his fly down. A bit of mild luck would be enough to get people hooked on Tzeentch, and then it's only a matter of time before they've got birds coming out of their balls and their left arm seems to have become a writhing staff that spews magic.

[Trixie]

Corruption should not be used to reflect "evil actions", but contact with and dealings with Chaos alone. After all, you don't see people grow tentacles or becoming huge slugs for doing evil things, and corruption does make one mutate eventually.

Um, what. The corruption of Chaos is precisely behaving bad - first, it is cutting someone a little, then a bit more, then a week after that you begin rambling about skulls and buy a Chainaxe to do a little bloodletting. Chaos is subtle, it doesn't corrupt anyone by dealings or contact, well, unless they're Tzeentch or Slaanesh, and even in these cases, your behavior is perfectly sufficient.

The part you mentioned, books and dealings, is used only when you need a quick fix of power, or some kind of deal. If behavior slowly heats the proverbial water until it boils, the deal hits it with lance battery of corruption.

It was amidst the last of these questions where the party killed him in "mercy". Was that sufficient justification for the actions ?

You know, I think what you did was... well, pointless. If I wanted to keep him from escaping, I'd break his legs or spine, if I wanted him talking, I'd bring the real torture (though, that's pointless, too, unless you can check if they say the truth, as they will lie). This is kind of both, kind of useless, and it might be well a corrupting behavior of someone more sadistic than he needs to. I'd need more data to decide.

As for the party, yeah, if he won't talk, and if I can't keep a prisoner, why bother? Only if you know he knows something (which is unlikely in a grunt's case), and you can walk him out, I'd consider leaving him alive.

[awa]

I would just mention that in the 40k universe fixing a cut tendon should be relativly easy. This one little act seems much to mild to cause coruption the imperium are not nice pepole.

[MickJay]

Um, what. The corruption of Chaos is precisely behaving bad - first, it is cutting someone a little, then a bit more, then a week after that you begin rambling about skulls and buy a Chainaxe to do a little bloodletting. Chaos is subtle, it doesn't corrupt anyone by dealings or contact, well, unless they're Tzeentch or Slaanesh, and even in these cases, your behavior is perfectly sufficient.

Clearly, then, an inquisitor ordering an extermination of a planet must have fallen to Chaos long time ago? Since he started by chasing, interrogating and killing cultists, by the time he got important enough to be able call Exterminatus, he must have already turned into a winged, spiky slug from all the Corruption he's gained.

Main problem with this reasoning is that a LOT of people in the Imperium do "bad" things on a daily basis, and yet almost none of them fall to Chaos. You're more likely to gain Corruption by reading a wrong book than going on a killing spree. Sure, Khorne might take interest in someone particularly bloodthirsty, but that's quite separate from "everyone who does bad things slides towards Chaos".

[Trixie]

I would just mention that in the 40k universe fixing a cut tendon should be relativly easy. This one little act seems much to mild to cause coruption the imperium are not nice pepole.

I could list many easy to fix things you can do to people while doing terrible physical damage, things only a sadist could do, but kids read this forum too. Corruption starts subtle.

And 'not being nice' (and this is essentially false, 80% of Imperium's worlds are pretty nice, if you read bethin the lines) =/= sadists and psychopaths. You want guys in that hella big warp storm to the north of Terra for that

Clearly, then, an inquisitor ordering an extermination of a planet must have fallen to Chaos long time ago? Since he started by chasing, interrogating and killing cultists, by the time he got important enough to be able call Exterminatus, he must have already turned into a winged, spiky slug from all the Corruption he's gained.

Let me quote urban legend about Stalin: One death is a tragedy, million deaths is a statistic. It is one thing to calmly press a button, it is another entirely to bloody your hands of your own will.

And yes, any of the Important Inquisitors would have long fallen to Chaos if not for their training and wards. In fact, many do despite them. Most guys willing to dabble in Daemonhosts and Sorcery already fell, they just try to cling to illusion they still serve Imperium. That's why 'excommunicate traitoris' status is handed almost daily.

Main problem with this reasoning is that a LOT of people in the Imperium do "bad" things on a daily basis, and yet almost none of them fall to Chaos. You're more likely to gain Corruption by reading a wrong book than going on a killing spree. Sure, Khorne might take interest in someone particularly bloodthirsty, but that's quite separate from "everyone who does bad things slides towards Chaos".

Well... If Emperor is really a Chaos god, they might avoid falling by falling for Him, not for one of the four. The more I read about Inquisition, the more I thing Hereticus (as Malleus and Xenos seem to know what they're doing) is really a cult of Khorne, as they seem to be mindless, abhor psykers, love two-handed chain-swords, bloody charges, etc. Is someone gave them brass armor with gold trims, no one would have noticed the change.

[Sindri]

Corruption does not mean evil, it means the taint of Chaos. I mean, in the 40K universe, the height of morality is the undead immortal god-emperor of mankind, who devours the souls of a thousand psykers every day in order to keep the interstellar communications and maps working, just to prevent all of humanity from being killed and eaten by the beasts that lurk in the void. If doing evil things led to Corruption, then half of the intelligent life in the universe would already have turned into hideous monsters and eaten the other half.

Incidentally, cutting someone's tendons to stop him from running and then asking questions isn't torture. Torture would be if, after he stopped, you started carving little bits off until he answered. Torture might have come later, but the rest of the party killed him before he could refuse to answer you. I have to wonder why...perhaps they thought he was about to tell you something they'd prefer to keep secret? Perhaps your commander hasn't betrayed you, but merely discovered your "comrades" true loyalties, and wasn't able to confirm that you weren't involved, or didn't have an opportunity to take them down without involving you.

[awa]

Evil and chaos are completly seperate dark eldar dont worship chaos (technicly they sacrifice pepole to hold off chaos) nor do necrons or orks but all do very horrible things without mutating.