Corruptions and players.


Advice

51 to 93 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I think corruptions give up too much, and at the moment, they're a punishment.

The idea of someone seeking out a corruption for power isn't even a slightly off base idea, there's plenty of stories of people trying to go to the dark side for more power (sith corruption, anyone?)

There's a lot of fun in one character with a corruption talking their party out of finding a way around it, having the "It's okay, just let it run a little bit longer, I can handle it, look at all this power!" That's such a basic concept, the allure of power, making a corruption feel like something that's actually worth not instantly fixing.

Right now, I've talked with some others, and there's not a single corruption with which I would take that route, they're all "GET ME FIXED!", and that's how you treat a disease or a curse.

Even with the variant rules, most gifts aren't great. +1 natural armor? Paralysis for 1 round on a crit with a weapon that has a 20 crit range? Most of these aren't amazing, and the stains more than make up for the benefit in most situations (age twice as fast and need 16 hours of sleep? Really?)

There's no concept of temptation of power in here, and the worst thing is (as has been discussed before), you don't die (Well, hive you do, promethean can be argued), you lose your character forever, no chance of getting it back. That's one of the things that doesn't sit well with a lot of people. If that's our drawback, shouldn't the benefits at least feel moderately worth it rather than actively treating it as a punishment?

I'm not looking for power for free here, I'm looking for power with a risk. If I want to go vampiric corruption, I want to have the chance to become a vampire, but I also want to have a reason to consider it instead of realizing just how raw a deal it is.

Silver Crusade

While not all the Manifestations are equal there are some where I love both the Gift and the Stain.

Vampiric Grace immediately comes to mind.


OK, This first part is a quibble about about choosing the emotionally loaded word punishment, (or punitive):

Is it punishment to be affected by a spell or SLA? I assume the "crime" would be failing the saving throw.
So taking damage is the punishment for having insufficient defenses?

If this is the case, then yes, the corruption is your punishment for failing your saving throw, the powers are a partial mitigation of that punishment. Is it fun to play a game with so much punishment to it?

Do I think there is room for tweaking some things if players and GM agree, YES, and I have posted this on multiple threads, including this one. But if this interferes with someone's right to portray me as unsympathetic and obstructionistic, I apologize, no, I really don't.

Do I apologize for or in any way abrogate my right to disagree, no.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N. Jolly wrote:
Right now, I've talked with some others, and there's not a single corruption with which I would take that route, they're all "GET ME FIXED!", and that's how you treat a disease or a curse.

I have a lot of players who refuse to wear heavy armor for the same reasons. Players are easily spooked. Some of these boons are really sweet, though, like the reroll that Accursed offers you.

I knew even before this book came out that there would be people on the Advice forums complaining that the benefits weren't optimal enough. Here, though, I'm just not seeing it. If your players are that problem-averse, they probably weren't up for the roleplaying task, anyways.


This is literally solely a mechanic to facilitate roleplaying. A campaign is not supposed to use it without heavy roleplaying and tone being involved. It is meant to be thematic, modded-as-needed, and advanced at a rate the GM personally prefers. Like, have you seen how vague some of the rules are? It's left up to the GM how exactly to run it.

If people want to start a thread about ways to make the rules more beneficial to PCs, or how to make them slower-acting, great. It probably belongs in Suggestions/House Rules, honestly. But many have come to this thread just like they come to the martial-caster threads I so thoroughly index: To argue a case and try to get others to agree. That is how this subforum is choosing to handle the discussion. They're trying to dissect a rainbow.

We are taking a ruleset that is meant to be adjusted to fit individual campaigns and complaining it does not fit our campaigns.

I think the OP knows what they're trying to do here. I don't think many of the people posting to agree with them do.

Liberty's Edge

I believe the root problem comes from the use of the word Corruption which has already quite a history in RPGs and in PFRPG. Especially its symetry with Redemption and its link with temptation.

Calling it Contamination might have been closer to its core concept


The history of Corruption in 3.x is as a system that warps your body to look evil with almost no benefits granted. Just saying. :P


Raven,

Contamination isn't closer to the core concept.
It is the catalyst if you go by their model.

Corruption is the right word thematically and emotionally for the effects.
Corruption accurately describes the destruction and changes caused, and it suggests the horrific nature of what is going on.


So, just curious. If they aren't supposed to be enticing, why have the gifts at all? If they are curses and punishments, why do they have rewards at all? It seems like an odd choice if they are meant to be something to avoid at all costs.

It's pretty obvious this is an issue of thematics. One side wants their mechanics for destruction and to go off on their fight to be rid of it before it consumes them, the other wants the idea of the deal with a devil where the power entices but will ultimately destroy them. The gifts imply the latter is possible, but the mechanics only really manage the former.

That said, reading this book a lot of the stuff that seems somewhat divisive are the same mechanics held in 3.0's (And maybe other editions, wouldn't know) Ravenloft. Spells make you evil? Ravenloft did it. Slow turning to evil with boons and banes ending in ultimately being a dark lord and npc? Ravenloft.

Course, Ravenloft was somewhat more random in it's boon Bane thing, since any bad act could dark lord you, though the odds were fairly low for really mundane crimes, but it also generally went more with the temptation to evil route instead of the curse that will destroy you if not cured. Stuff like you get boosts to strength but become more bestial so take increasing penalties to mental scores, or ability to control and see in darkness but increasing penalties from light, as well as the various psychological alterations with it.

For the curse that will slowly destroy you sort of deal if not fixed, they had the custom curse rules. They too weren't always guaranteed to work but they definitely did allow the creation of these nasty curses. They usually had a better chance of working if you allowed an escape clause, ensuring that sort of thing usually was prevalent.

Silver Crusade

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
The history of Corruption in 3.x is as a system that warps your body to look evil with almost no benefits granted. Just saying. :P

*nods*

The only Corruption I can recall is the Corruption and Taint rules in Heroes of Horror.

Pathfinder's Corruption rules are a blessing compared to them.


Some of the stories I've heard from Ravenloft are what initially made the idea seem cool to me. Stuff like a guy sewing a corpse's hand on his stump and getting a new hand and some special powers out of the deal...but the hand occasionally betraying him at a critical moment or trying to strangle him in his sleep.

None of these Corruptions seem that nuanced.

Shadow Lodge

As far as I can tell (since I don't have HA, and have only read about Corruptions on here), Corruptions were designed to be, "Something scary that affects the PC and will kill/undeadify them if not dealt with soon." It's a different kind of scary than, "Something tempting that PCs might want to have, or at least delay curing for a while, but which will kill/undeadify you if you use it too much."

Corruptions have been left ambiguous, to allow GMs to fiddle with them as desired, but either way, need to have a unanimous "Yes" to the GM asking, "Are you okay with Corruptions in this adventure?"

The comments of, "You just want more power for free!' and "They're not scary, they're just boring punishments!" look to me to be a divide between people who'd want them one way or the other, worrying that the other side is saying, "This is how they should be," rather than, "This is how I'd prefer it." Then the anger builds.

While I'd be okay with either version, I would agree that a "Three Strikes" setup with a flat DC - if that is how it works - might need some house-ruling. I'd GM it based on the Corruption and the PC it's affecting. I'd also set up a "Corruption Track" where successful or failed saves move you one way or another along it.


I understand the disappointment.
It is utterly clear that several people read the posts and got just what you did.
It is equally clear that several people didn't, I happen to be in the "Didn't" subset.

I may have not read it your way because I am just not interested. If I wanted to play Creatures of the Dark, I would play World of Darkness again, they do better at handling playing big powerful monsters, and the power sets are much more interesting.

As written it is fairly nuetral about how you should use anything in the book. I expect that is the right approach. It's available if everyone wants it, but there is nothing there that a rules bully could really use to sway things one way or the other.


I will add, I am actually strongly considering working with my GM to have my character contract the Hellbound Corruption for my Tyrant Antipaladin in our Hell's Vengeance campaign. For the character, becoming a Devil could be an interesting occurrence as I'm not actually sure whether I want to play up his loyalty to House Thrune and Cheliax or his pursuit of power and loyalty to his dark lord Asmodeus. It could make it interesting if the character wants to support Thrune but finds themself pulled in support of Asmodeus (more than Thrune, though their paths ally for the most part) and rejected by Cheliax and Thrune for "consorting" with the help. Because while Cheliax and Hell are on friendly terms Cheliax and Thrune prefer to think Hell serves Thrune, not the other way around.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

All I'm saying is that they did the Corruption Temptation far better with the Damnation Feats from Champions of Corruption.

These have an actual temptation to keep getting more, knowing full well that the power gained is more than linear for each one you take. I was honestly hoping the Corruption system would follow in a similar manner in terms of strength, but with the horror aspect played up (and more than just harder resurrections as the penalty).

The system isn't bad per se, but the temptation promised in the blogs and the Facebook discussions isn't present out of the box, though its very easy to fix up if thats what you want.

I like the overall idea. The stains, gifts and variety are excellent (I love the inclusion of non-standard stuff such as the Deep One, Hive and Promethean), but the execution leaves a little to be desired.

IMO

Spoiler:

General fixes I'm tinkering with:

Corruption now has 4 Stages instead of 3.
-> This adds just enough of a buffer to really help, and allows it to move a little more organically from one stage to the next.

Corruption save DC is now 10 + twice your Manifestation level instead of 15 + Manifestation level.
-> This makes early game Corruptions survivable but still dangerous, while making Corruptions past 5th, much more dangerous to take (capping at DC 28 instead of DC 24)

This includes adjustments of some of the Gifts/Stains to make them more dependent on Manifestation level, giving you more incentive to 'take the next hit'.


Inserting a Corruption is always a choice by the GM. Worrying about the GM being a dick is like saying, "I just think it's really risky to give GMs the ability to deploy whatever monsters they want. What if they just throw a tarrasque at you at level one? This ruleset isn't very player-friendly."

If you're forced to go to the Elemental Plane of Air, well, there are a couple options.

1. You can't go. In this case, you get heavy roleplaying drama as your PC has to abandon their friends, who perhaps only now realize you're compromised. You'd probably either get a sidequest or get to play an NPC.

2. You go and take the risk. In this case, you get heavy roleplay drama as your character faces the most dangerous situation they've been in since they first started to Manifest. This might even be the climax of your character's arc, especially if the GM throws in a curveball like putting the cure on the Plane of Air.

3. The group realigns priorities, perhaps seeking out a cure or trying to find another way. This one is a longshot and would be taxing for the GM, but it could potentially lead to a lot of drama as the party prioritizes the wellbeing of their friend over their quest.

That's the thing about Corruptions: They shift the story they're in. A GM has to be aware of potential speedbumps when using them, of course, and you still need to be able to mod the Corruptions on occasion. For instance, the GM might allow the player to retain their PC, but they're now Chaotic Evil and loyal to evil gods in addition to their old "surface friends". Sounds like they'd fit right in in a horror game. And that's the thing—this is a horror game mechanic. Challenges like the ones I outlined above are pretty much exactly what you should be facing.

I like Hubaris's idea, though, especially the save DC change. I'll be using that in my games.


Hubaris,

Your IMO, suggestions seem reasonable to me. If you GM disagreed, I doubt you would get in a pother over it. Just the right approach.

That the temptations are not as tempting as the Damnation feats.
Well you don't have to burn a precious feat on them.
There are never enough feats, and there are so many I want.

Did you read this Variant?

Useful Corruption: In this form of campaign, your corruption's gifts allow you to fight sinister forces. You select which manifestation to take when you gain the corruption and with each increase to your manifestation level. You receive the gift, but you don't have to take the stain. If you refuse the stain, that manifestation doesn't increase your manifestation level, which could prevent you from qualifying for additional manifestations. You can accept the stain of your manifestations at any time, immediately increasing your manifestation level.

This just a free gift, the only downside is you can't collect them all.
There are options


I will add to this discussion that I think Paizo in general designs with a certain altruistic philosophy in mind. There also clear divisions between PCs and monsters. Monsters are always written to be NPCs for the GM exclusively. PCs fight monsters, period. I don't think this jives with many player's perceptions or desires. I find most players would prefer to swim in a sea of gray than having things so neatly defined.

To dangle something in front of players letting them become monster-like and flirt with having the GMs own tools is clearly a lot more appealing than what they anticipated. That there's a steep cliff to monster territory makes Paizo reflexively recommend that character now belong to the GM. I can't say I like this. At all.

There's a certain bravery to even writing the book at all and even to having their first evil campaign. This execution simply makes me question if they have the balls to deliver, to be blunt.

It certainly does spark the imagination and definitely gives me some personal ideas about how I would love to use them. Unfortunately, GMs tend to be, in my view, overly conservative to the point of meanness, if necessary, when it comes to offering players options. That Paizo didn't stake out a wide enough territory for horror makes me groan to think of the "horror" campaigns that will be run. Then again, I hate how most GMs make players play "mother may I" if they want anything beyond standard options anyway, but that's another topic.


Buri Reborn wrote:

I will add to this discussion that I think Paizo in general designs with a certain altruistic philosophy in mind. There also clear divisions between PCs and monsters. Monsters are always written to be NPCs for the GM exclusively. PCs fight monsters, period. I don't think this jives with many player's perceptions or desires. I find most players would prefer to swim in a sea of gray than having things so neatly defined.

To dangle something in front of players letting them become monster-like and flirt with having the GMs own tools is clearly a lot more appealing than what they anticipated. That there's a steep cliff to monster territory makes Paizo reflexively recommend that character now belong to the GM.

I hadn't thought of that, but I think you may be right that it's some fundamental difference in underlying philosophy, rather than a difference of opinion about implementation. (In fact, I suspect that's true of a lot of the more controversial rules/design issues).


@Daw: I did read the variant and I appreciate that they had variants at all. Its more on course with what I would use personally, to make that Blade-esque character. I understand that unlike Damnnation Feats they are 'free', but in reality they aren't. The vast majority are sidegrades at best and downgrades at worst (though flavourful with some nice perks). For instance with Accursed, being able to spontaneously cast any Witch spell (less than your Manifestation level) once per day to respond to a Wish is very cool and definitely usable, however the downside of having to make a DC 20 + Double Spell Level check to cast any Harmless spells, and having to save against all ally spells is crippling. That in itself makes it have a cost, not a cost like Feats, but its still there.

Though I am honestly happy with using variants and modifying the base system set out, which is half the fun for me anyway. However I can understand the frustration of people who wanted something straight out of the box to use.


I looked at corruption, hoping for player OPTIONS. Nothing about the corruption speaks of options, but penalties, for gaining weak imitations of 'real' monster characters. It's a real shame. Perhaps there will be better third party alternatives, but for the time being, I guess we're still handing out templates.


Hubaris wrote:

All I'm saying is that they did the Corruption Temptation far better with the Damnation Feats from Champions of Corruption.

These have an actual temptation to keep getting more, knowing full well that the power gained is more than linear for each one you take. I was honestly hoping the Corruption system would follow in a similar manner in terms of strength, but with the horror aspect played up (and more than just harder resurrections as the penalty).

The system isn't bad per se, but the temptation promised in the blogs and the Facebook discussions isn't present out of the box, though its very easy to fix up if thats what you want.

I like the overall idea. The stains, gifts and variety are excellent (I love the inclusion of non-standard stuff such as the Deep One, Hive and Promethean), but the execution leaves a little to be desired.

IMO

** spoiler omitted **

I added a fourth Stage for mine, but it is still unfinished:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2tu3f?Redone-Corruptions-from-Horror-Adventures #1


I didn't check this thread for a bit and it mildly exploded. I did want to make one counter argument that came up a few times.

People saying they're not meant to last or be long-term and are more of a "fix me now" sort of deal.

While you're not wrong, because I think the party doesn't want one of their players to suddenly turn on them I will make a couple of points.

1. The system grants more manifestations and overall stuff over levels rather than time. Meaning it does somewhat intend for you to carry a curse for extended periods of time.

2. I have noticed there are very careful wordings on these that allow you to avoid the saves. Like vampirism to progress requires you to drain an innocent sentient creature, while the requirement is blood per week of a sentient creature. So keyword being innocent (which is 100% DM's ruling, but if you were going to off that bandit anyways because he was attacking you one could make the argument he wasn't innocent).

3. I'm slowly realizing if you make a character who is ready for corruptions you'll have a way easier time. Playing a Cleric, Inquisitor, Monk, or even just a sorcerer (bonus points if you go for the wisdom based spell casting archetype bloodline), add the trait, a feat, items. Heck the +2 on saves vs corruption is a 2nd level spell, so if its on your spell list you're stronger, and if its not potions exist.

4. The stains don't seem to be that bad imho. Like Vampire fangs is horrible, but if you've reached the point where you've outpaced your save through items/magic/ect... all you fear is nat 1s, then saving each day doesn't sound too horrible.

My original concern is if you started off with one you would die to it pretty quickly. Now looking at it, its more available of an option, just maybe not for all calsses/builds. I think the only concern is if the DM lets you pick the manifestations or if they do. As from what i'm reading it doesn't seem to directly specify.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Rysky wrote:


The designers have been upfront with us ever since HA's announcement that the Corruptions would be horrible things to do to a character. I got the book expecting them to be as such. I got exactly what I was expecting and was told.

I'm not so sure. Looking back at "The Monster Within" blog it spends the vast majority of the corruption section talking about all of the benefits it provides a character, while briefly noting that these benefits come with drawbacks and risks. The original Horror Adventures blog mentions them 'tempting into darkness'. Mark's posts seem to agree with that and even specifically call out 'vile corruptions' as a variant rule for people who want corruptions to mostly be terrible curses.

Given that, I figured beneficial corruptions would be free power, vile corruptions would in effect just be curses and regular corruptions would break even. That's the impression most of the people I've talked to had too.

Maybe I'm just an idiot though.


Squiggit wrote:
Rysky wrote:


The designers have been upfront with us ever since HA's announcement that the Corruptions would be horrible things to do to a character. I got the book expecting them to be as such. I got exactly what I was expecting and was told.

I'm not so sure. Looking back at "The Monster Within" blog it spends the vast majority of the corruption section talking about all of the benefits it provides a character, while briefly noting that these benefits come with drawbacks and risks. The original Horror Adventures blog mentions them 'tempting into darkness'. Mark's posts seem to agree with that and even specifically call out 'vile corruptions' as a variant rule for people who want corruptions to mostly be terrible curses.

Given that, I figured beneficial corruptions would be free power, vile corruptions would in effect just be curses and regular corruptions would break even. That's the impression most of the people I've talked to had too.

Maybe I'm just an idiot though.

I don't think you're an idiot and can totally understand where people are coming from who think these really aren't that great and therefore not tempting at all (especially given the "fail often enough and you're an NPC" issue).

FWIW, I think the rules as presented do model the temptation to the dark side, I just don't see it as tempting the player so much as tempting the character. For them, considerations of eventual NPCness is a nonissue. More significantly, I don't think they'd be scanning to the bottom of the list and evaluating the ultimate consequence for "selecting this option" but rather facing a difficult situation and being presented with an ideal short term solution (with some half considered consequence down the track).

The tendency we have of overemphasising the short term benefits and minimising the long term costs could easily (and does IRL) see many taking the poor long term choice in order to achieve a quick fix of their current problem without really thinking it through. Personally, I think that was the kind of temptation the designers were going for (IC rather than OOC).


This discussion reminds me a lot of the discussions the occurred around the game shop's when The Warhammer Books on Evil Gods came out and the material they presented in them for corruption of PC's.

MDC

Community & Digital Content Director

Removed some escalated back and forth comments and the posts replying to them/quoting them (some of these were lengthy, so if you would like to repost without references, please ping community@paizo.com). Folks, the Advice subforum is intended to be a helpful space, bickering amongst each other and pointing fingers is really not useful for the original posters in this space. Help us keep these threads civil and if you don't have advice to provide, then take it to another thread or re-think whether it's worth posting.


Seeing as my last post was removed due to the refered post being removed (and so on), I guess I'll just re-state what I said (since I really don't see it as being a problematic statment). I also don't want to bother the community team since the post would be sort of weird outside of the quoted context and needs to be reformulated.

The reason why I don't really have a problem with these corruptions, and something I forgot to keep in mind, is probably because I don't play with resurrection magic in my games. Loosing a character is something to be expected in my group. So I can totally understand that people who doesn't want to play that way aren't as positive as I am in regards to these new rules.


Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

This discussion reminds me a lot of the discussions the occurred around the game shop's when The Warhammer Books on Evil Gods came out and the material they presented in them for corruption of PC's.

MDC

That is a good reference. I also thought the HA book would have corruptions be very similar to Warhammer corruptions, the "gifts" from the Dark Gods that can make you more powerful but have drawbacks. What the corruption system in HA gives you is a very small bonus with far too much of a negative.

I appreciate the variant rule they included in the book but I think those of us, like myself, wanting more options to have characters who also happen to be vampires/werewolves/etc will have to GM these rules quite a bit or go back to using templates.

51 to 93 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Corruptions and players. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Advice