It's meant to be vitriolic. What we have here is a GM who thinks that Corruption is meant to be used to ensure player compliance like a bad cop using a taser on someone who mouths off to him. The book is fairly clear about when Corruption should be awarded - but this guy just dgaf, and figures it's there to dump on players who displease him. And he didn't inform the players beforehand - either to trick them into a game in which that's the case, or just completely oblivious that he has a duty to stay even-handed. OP, I suggest you read over the core book to see exactly how this guy's jerking you around. Also, find a new game.

The book's views on 'corruption' do not necessarily conform with the rest of 40k fluff. Depending on the GM's preference, the given examples may or may not be utterly worthless. Just like most of the core book, come to think.

Now we come to the truly ludicrous demand here:

A GM must inform their players of any ruling they make on the fly before the campaign starts.

The result of this would be memorising a rulebook in its entirity or endlessly looking up the RAW results of any action. I don't think that's fun. Nobody in my gaming group thinks that's fun. We had a guy who did and was rather obnoxious about it for a while. We kicked him out over a year ago. He still hasn't found a new group. There's a lesson there, I think.

'House Rules' are something that are generally understood to be disclosed beforehand; a change to the Corruption system to generally line more up with the GM (and not necessarily the players') perception of how things should work should be disclosed. Taking your idea to absurdity, there's *nothing* the players should be able to expect from a game - which is bunk. Remember rule -1?

In general GMs who operate as you describe only seem to work in places where their players don't have other options. As for your last paragraph? Yeah, that totally happened. And if you don't send that chain letter you'll have bad luck. /s

Knowing a rules system is a foundation to good role-playing, not an impediment to it.

Yeah, we get it, you're a ruleslawyer.

Knowing the rules (not all but the main ones to make a character, handling basic test, combat) never hurts, Knowing the minor ones can help to. Making House-rules to make the game easier, and more enjoyable also help. Also Players should have to know from the changings if it affect them. (like the corruption one, or healing, social conflitcs etc. But things like how a specific ritual, psycic power used by the enemy, how the population react to things they do not know...these can be saved to the moment when they learn it)

It's meant to be vitriolic. What we have here is a GM who thinks that Corruption is meant to be used to ensure player compliance like a bad cop using a taser on someone who mouths off to him. The book is fairly clear about when Corruption should be awarded - but this guy just dgaf, and figures it's there to dump on players who displease him. And he didn't inform the players beforehand - either to trick them into a game in which that's the case, or just completely oblivious that he has a duty to stay even-handed. OP, I suggest you read over the core book to see exactly how this guy's jerking you around. Also, find a new game.

If I go by your very limited judgement based on very limited informations, then I hope you've got no players around the table.

Rules for corruption gives example; not exactly what can be given at any time.

This is a roleplaying game, not chess. There is a **** lot of things that happens when you make some actions. We call this narration. You know, the basic concept of playing a roleplaying game.

If I go by your very limited judgement based on very limited informations, then I hope you've got no players around the table.

Why? Because then they might be playing at a table without a GM who dishes out arbitrary punishments when the players don't intuit his ideas of how to play their character and obey?

Yeah, we get it, you're a ruleslawyer.

It's more that I'm against arbitrary and unilateral action on the part of the GM for their own enjoyment to the detriment of everyone else. If the rules are altered to create a better narrative - why did nobody run that by the OP? Why wasn't he clued in ahead of time - 'Hey, I think it'd make more sense if characters doing rituals not aligned with their god gained extra corruption.' That's all it would have taken. But, then again, if it's stated the players are likely to avoid it, so you don't get the satisfaction of your players being punished for not playing your way, I guess, so if you're that kind of antisocial, it makes sense you'd roll that way.

I'd be careful about sneaking in slurs like "antisocial" , given the tone and content of your posts. You're making a **** ton of assumptions in your post that hold no basis in reality and are heavily clouded by a very flawed perception of what went on and what goes on at gaming tables.

Basically, the primary issue with giving out Corruption in such an instance is the degree of it. Presuming that the OP's character did get twenty extra for such an occasion (I'm guessing this is what happened but things have been rather muddled), their penalty was rather excessive. As a point of comparison, there's only one thing in the books which grants so much Corruption, and it's very much voluntary. (The Rite of Sundering gives you 1 Corruption for each hour you sit in it, so if you weather the effects then you can gain a lot quickly.) Nothing else does nearly as much:

-Death (well, burning Infamy to not really die) gives you 1d10.

-Being defeated but not dying to some foe of Chaos gives you 1d5.

-Doing various things useful to your God or to Chaos give you 1d5, or some set value no greater than 5.

-Failing your God by not living up to their ideal gives you 1.

-Failing to complete a Compact's Primary Objective (ie, really screwing up) gives you 1d10+5.

So that's the reason why a bunch of us were bothered about this. It's not about the punishment itself, but rather about its power.

I don't think anyone here is disagreeing that 20 corruption seems a bit off. The conclusions drawn from it, though, seem rather unfounded in certain cases.

To clarify. After the revisit, he was awarded a total of 4d5. I did leave out he could have taken actions that would have eliminated all of the corruption.

I like giving out Corruption. It's fun, and it makes the players think. Of course, I usually do it in increments of 1d5 or 1d10 at a time, not a flat 20, and certainly not for the Rite of Fleshmoulding. Whilst GM's are of course well within their rites to change rules (as has been stated - it's an RPG, not chess), if the Rite was meant to give Corruption I'm pretty sure I would have written it that way. The thing about this Ritual is that failing it can be pretty brutal - roll on a Critical chart w/+1 for each DoF. That can kill you instantly.

I think adding Corruption to the mix is, well, unfair!

BYE

The thing about this Ritual is that failing it can be pretty brutal - roll on a Critical chart w/+1 for each DoF. That can kill you instantly.

In any case, if you think the ritual is unbalanced (like I do), the solution is not to slap a Corruption tax on it, but rather to re-examine the cost-reward structure of the ritual itself. HBMC, in terms of long-term play, where you're using it (probably with Mastery in Medicae or whatnot to ensure no failure) and getting multiple stats with Unnatural Characteristic 6-8 along with Fear (4) and other stuff... do you think there's additional concerns that need addressing?

Even giving you the benefit of the 0.16 % chance that you actually rolled 20 corruption on 4d5, that doesn't even make any sense. That's not how corruption works. Again, I'll reiterate that you are using Corruption as a stick to try to get your players to play the game the way you want them to, whether or not you're actually telling them what that 'one right path' is. By saying that he could have taken actions that would have eliminated the Corruption, you're basically admitting to running your table in a 'do what I have in mind for your character or else' mentality.

To clarify. After the revisit, he was awarded a total of 4d5. I did leave out he could have taken actions that would have eliminated all of the corruption.

That's perfectly fine. I would've done things differently, but tastes differ and it's your table. I think it's great you're encouraging your players to ask around if something is okay or not, but as far as feedback goes YMMV. Generally, people getting hung up on you "using the rules incorrectly" aren't worth listening to, for example, but they'll be rather petulant in their strawmanning and insistant in their guilt tripping attempts until you either acquiesce or hit the ignore button(which, at this point, I have in one case in this thread). Rules are a guideline, at best, for a GM . The consistent portrayal of the setting always comes first, and if Nesh/Nurgle/Khorne/TheHornedRat/Tzeench would do this in your 40k, then he does that, period. Who cares what the rules say? 90% of GW's fluff says the opposite of what Black Crusade's jigsaw puzzle of inconsistencies stipulates as rules, let alone the inner workings of chaos.

Fact of the matter is, your player wasn't being very smart and he paid the price. That happens and it's a good thing. The only thing I'd advise considering is maybe, at this point of your game past the 100 threshold, abandoning the corruption scale entirely and looking for different ways to reward the players or express the displeasure of the gods. WHFRPG2e's Tome of Corruption offers some great ideas there in regards to gifts. Take a step away from the number scale and into the mystical. Let them mutate a bit more, gain daemonic familiars and allies, let warp storms swallow their armies or grant them three wishes from a daemon. It's a chaos game past the threshold the system even covers. Go Homer's Odyssee epic instead of Bob the Bookeeper.

To clarify. After the revisit, he was awarded a total of 4d5. I did leave out he could have taken actions that would have eliminated all of the corruption.

4d5 is still rather high for this situation, even if we're talking about two rituals. If there exist out-of-character issues with some mechanic or player it's best to talk it out and explain each side outside of the game. (For instance, you might have limited the benefit of the ritual to something good but not crazy and/or limited how much it could be used.) But in the interests of furthering the discussion, what were these steps that might have eliminated the corruption?

(As an aside, arguably the least risky way to remove Corruption in BC is to have Machine 3+ and use Necron Phylacteries on yourself. The only problem is that Necron Phylacteries are hideously rare and in the care of Warp-hating xenos, but if the PCs think it's worth the effort to get them perhaps you could introduce this as a side-story.)

Fact of the matter is, your player wasn't being very smart and he paid the price. That happens and it's a good thing.

Well, when you don't tell the player what's 'smart' or not before the game starts, no, it's not a good thing, it just comes off as a GM being petulant and arbitrary.

If you're going off the rails to keep things fun, then good on you. If, like in this case, you're breaking the rules to make the player in question's experience miserable, you're being a prick. GMing for your players should not be a meta-lesson in the idea of power being an inherently corrupting influence.

GMing for your players should not be a meta-lesson in the idea of power being an inherently corrupting influence.

GMing for YOUR players.

Other GM, other approaches. If players do not want to play with him, their choice. I recommend that you do not play with him, that doesn't make that GM a bad storyteller or whatever. He simply has an other vision than you of what must be done in a game.

Good things aren't only those you think are good things.

GMing for your players should not be a meta-lesson in the idea of power being an inherently corrupting influence.

GMing for YOUR players.

Other GM, other approaches. If players do not want to play with him, their choice. I recommend that you do not play with him, that doesn't make that GM a bad storyteller or whatever. He simply has an other vision than you of what must be done in a game.

Good things aren't only those you think are good things.

What I meant was that GMing should not be a matter of 'I, as the GM, have authority, and thus should use it to make myself happy and others miserable,' not anything vis a vis the themes of the actual roleplay (Chaos, corruption, etc).

What I meant was that GMing should not be a matter of 'I, as the GM, have authority, and thus should use it to make myself happy and others miserable,' not anything vis a vis the themes of the actual roleplay (Chaos, corruption, etc).

Agreed.

What I think is incorrect is the fact that you consider that someone is trying to make others miserable just because they do not play the game nor interpret the rules as you do.

I have no problem with your position and the way you would do it around your table. Just about your one-sided judgment about the present case and any other you could do like this.

What I think is incorrect is the fact that you consider that someone is trying to make others miserable just because they do not play the game nor interpret the rules as you do.

I have no problem with your position and the way you would do it around your table. Just about your one-sided judgment about the present case and any other you could do like this.

House ruling corruption gains without warning is a pretty clear example of something that I find egregious regardless of how much it differs from my point of view. It's not the addition of vectors to gain corruption from, but rather the ad hoc adjudication of them in ways obviously incredibly deleterious to an enjoyable play experience that makes the GM's activity suspect.

Well that's an argument with which we can speak honestly.

Personally, I don't know what the game master told his players at the beginning of the game. If he didn't say anything about that, we can argue about it.

Personnally, I run Dark Heresy (I tried my hand at black crusade and have all the stuff but this is not my favourite game). In Dark Heresy, I made it clear to my players that any actions they poses in regard to chaos gods or xenos machinations (plugging themselves to altering machines and science, playing with powers of chaos, etc.) will corrupt them (and give them insanity in some times). That's a clear theme in all of my games and the situation you describe would have arrived (maybe not 4D5, I find it harsh).

I prefer to play with a Cthulhu like version of the things. They generally can test willpower (with maluses when the situation ask), and have a result like 1/1D10. If they succeed, they get one corruption point, if they fail, they 1D10 (or 1D5, or whatev')

That's my way of doing things. This way, characters can go through it (and like willpower a lot), but they all know that when they touch chaos, do not respect spiritual engagement to some entities and such, they will pay.

Well that's an argument with which we can speak honestly.

Personally, I don't know what the game master told his players at the beginning of the game. If he didn't say anything about that, we can argue about it.

From OP's post it's pretty clear he did not clue his players in.

Generally, my friends and I run things under the caveat we can change whatever we want whenever we want and if there's any issues, they're to be discussed after the session. It's served us very well, and frankly, we often abandon RAW if it's convoluted or otherwise poorly designed. Our 40k games, for example, in the end had us toss the system entirely. Our d6 games are largely RAW (aside from some minor gear tweaks/addons).

From OP's post it's pretty clear he did not clue his players in.

No, from OP's post we see that he didn't consider himself having any clue. That's different. There is always 2 sides to a coin.

One of my player could tell you "I wasn't warned at the beginning of the campaign that blablabla" but in fact, all of my players know now, for something like 6-7 years, that my games are designed with the theme of corruption of the body and spirit as something very central. And as DeathbyGrotz says, it depends on the game master.

But personnaly, I see the game master as someone that the job is to give players a nice story in which to invest them. This come with the fact of giving setbacks and consequences to choices made by players for them to be careful. And this is alright.

After that, if there is something not right with that, speak with your GM and if that doesn't go the way you want, maybe that's you as a player that isn't in the right group, without the group being bad.