I'm looking for ways to tempt the characters in my campaign in order to seduce them to the Dark Side.

I would like more creative means than just exposing them to tonnes of Corruption points. That's lazy.

Essentially, I want to arrange Dark Pacts without being too obvious. Instead of asking for favors in a ritual or from an evil old witch in some swamp I would like these temptations to occur on scene, while there's a pressure to decide.

Here are some ideas:

• After burning a Fate Point (in order to survive a horrible death), I offer to let them keep it.
• If a character has a chance at striking with Righteous Fury, I could offer to let them automatically succeed, and roll extra damage right away...
• Offer to replenish or double their Fate Points for the encounter (for USE, not BURNING, ie, lots of potential re-rolls and such)
• Offer to nullify a successful hit from an enemy which could potentially be fatal.

All of which have a catch (eg.- the Fate Point is taken from another character at random). Also corruption I guess...

Any suggestions? If you do this sort of thing in your campaigns, what methods have you used?

Two problems I see here.

1) You're tempting the players, not their characters, by offering them mechanical advantages relating to things which are intangible in-character, such as fate points.

2) If you take away from one player and give to another you're breeding conflict between said players. There's nothing wrong with inter-party conflict, you'd be brewing conflict between the players themselves.

Work with the character's desires instead. The adept has a thirst for knowledge? Have an acquaintance offer to acquire some interesting and eclectic tomes for him. An assassin who prides himself on his ability to perform? Exotic combat-drugs of unknown origin, some shiny looking weapon marred by a few strange symbols, a unfamiliar good-luck charm which a friend swears is the real deal. Then bring in mechanical benefits. The book grants Forbidden Lore without an XP cost, the drugs boost several attributes by 10 and have remarkably benign side-effects. Make them too good to give up, both IC and OOC. And if the acolyte refuses these temptations? Have them suffer, make them feel the need for that extra edge, that little luxury that only their over-zealous piety demands they abstain from. Make these terrible and corrupting things something truly desirable.

Another issue is that you don't seem to have a tracking method for all the perks you are handing out to your players.

Another option, depends on how you do psyker training but a mentor could be on the scene who offers corrupted trainig, just call it 'special' with a +5 to something. The player, or at least the character, should know there is something up.

However there is a fine line between tempting the players to the side of chaos and duping them for the sole purpose of corrupting them. In all cases, there should be some opportunity for the players to discover the underlying corruption. For example would they come back if one day the GM simply said 'and now you are corrupted and working for the forces of Chaos'.

Snidesworh and Rashid ad Din Sinan both made excellent and insightful suggestions. In my group, at character creation, all of the players choose a concept, we roll/create a character complete with a background, motivation, and aspirations. I'm lucky enough to have a few seasoned rpgers that understand that some things, such as temptation or seduction, are best role-played based on all of the pc's creation story. Its a fine balance to find, a lot of metagame wants (bonus skills or abilities) are given with the understanding that there may or may not be a price to pay. At all times, the player is in charge of his or her character's destiny. For example, we have a Schola Progenium arbitrator whose character creations states that his parents were "Lost to the Void". During travel through the Warp, sometimes his "parents" whisper warnings of things to come (I allow him a free fate point or a simply tell him there is an ambush up ahead). At first, these things are free (and relatively "low power"). Eventually, I offered him an Elite Advance, "Communion with the Lost" which, by opening oneself to the Warp, allows communication with the spirits of those lost in the Void. I explained by buying this advance, other abilities based on this gateway talent will present themselves in the future but will be Elite Advances as well. By choosing to buy these advances, his character slowly slips towards Chaos...(opening oneself to other spirits is never a good thing!) The key isn't any in game mechanical advantage or disadvantage, its the players. My group understands that (in our humble opinions) part of the enjoyment is in staying in character, a character which has to answer for his own choices but a character he controls none the less.

Rashid ad Din Sinan said:

I fully agree with this. Together with the players in my group we have a clear unwritten rule that everything that is done story-wise depends on the motives and further evolution of the characters. At char creation it is decided what makes the chars tick so to speak.

We usually play neutral chars who can swing from ultra-good (well Imperium good anyway) to somewhere in the middle but never go fully corrupt. If we want to play a campaign like that we decide it beforehand because we all feel it would ruin game-play if only one or a few chars in a group go for the darker path and others would rather stay true to the cause.
I do play on their chars' "character" from time to time; seeing how well they resist temptation and punish/reward accordingly them throughout the storyline.

Ever since having seen apage on demon weapons I've been wondering on a way I could slip one into my game. I'm currently reading the Eisenhorn omnibus and like the slow slip in chaos and corruption, sometimes without the knowledge of the character.

My current idea is that the players can find and kill off some bad guy with a kick-ass blade that the players will hopefully want to pick up but unknown to them it is a blade possessed with a demon that had some kind of bond/pact with the previous wielder and is weakened as a result of their death and so would start off as a weak willed demon with sporadic powers that would build up over time, especially if the player uses it in a chaos way or somehow calls upon its powers more often.

My problem is that from the blade doing strange things like possibly glowing near manifestations of the warp (trying not to make it too sting like), or some of the other strange and unexpected powers I would hope that the players will catch on that theres something special about this blade, at which point the dark forces may try and trick them into thinking its blessed in some way.

This is a problem because if they continue to use it Id want them to rack up corruption and/or insanity points, but it seems a bit harsh if they don't realise it. I would probably silently role WP checks to try and resist them but Id have to either find encounters I could hide the added corruption in or give out corruption in such a way as to heavily suggest its the blade, or to keep it completely silent until it suddenly all hits them like a ton of bricks! (Say those 30 accumulated corruption points hit them when its nature is finally revealed).

Any clever ideas as to how I can make them want to keep using it, hide its true nature and yet still punish them for it while being 'fair' about the whole thing? Or would it be better to remove these things from being strictly game-mechanical and more into a story based footing, with the character getting more and harder WP tests to resist the demon taking actions over time as it grows more powerful.

Icewind said:

As fate would have it I too ran a similar scenario in my campaign (Thank You Michael Moorecock for Stormbringer, we all owe you a debt of thanks for the inspiration!) The weapon in question was given the Piercing Weapon Quality (a house rule of mine, subtract Pen from both armour and toughness, add Pen to Righteous Fury dmg). The weapon damage remanined the same but the Pen value slowly increased as the corruption grew. Long story short, I initially imposed an insanity point here and there to not only the bearer but also those who witnessed how shockingly easy it was for the blade to sunder flesh and cleave through bone. The unfortunate victems were also "spiritually wounded" (mostly fluff descriptions, I believe I gave them a -10% penalty to the npc's rolls), which caused them unbearable pain (they begged for mercy, tore at their armour to dress the wounds, etc.). Invariably, the insanity gave way to corruption as the players (predictably) ignored such pleas and even began to tactically apply the effects to their advantage. The bearer of the blade would wound as many adversaries as possible, thus incapcitating them while his compatriots would excecute the victems (PB gun fire, flamers, grenades...). As they began to choose talents and skills based upon this ability I escalated the accumulation of both insanity and corruption, awarding points for each unnecessarily brutal combat and for the blatant disregard for human suffering in general (relative to 40K of course). I had orginally planned for those most corrupted to begin the slow process of either becoming Bloodletters of Khorne or even Daemonhosts but in the end we "retired the group" and created a new cell of acolytes. The corrupted cell has been relegated to "pick up and go games" between sessions for a change of pace. I am trying to coordinate with one of my friends to let his group hunt my group in some sort of grand game (we have done this in the past in other games) so that these characters can be retired in a memorable fashion.

Snidesworth said:

Very good points. That's pretty bad on my part- Can't believe that I was actually tempting the players rather than the characters. Oops.

My main problem is a slight unfamiliarity with the 40K setting. In a thread in the previous forum, this fact was very evident in that I wanted to dish out Corruption Points to characters who were doing pretty heinous acts. RAW I couldn't actually do this.

T.S. Luikart himself stated that he wished that there had been a way to manifest moral corruption in the rules. Many posters disagreed with this wholeheartedly: the setting is grim/dark, and burning down an orphanage is all in a day's work as long as it is done in the God Emperor's name.

Another conflict that I have with the setting, is that I enjoy the idea that there's an irony about the Inquisition: that many of their deeds are just as "morally wrong" in our standards outside of the setting. But to put things into perspective, their deeds are most likely HEROIC and VALIANT, no matter how many innocents are hurt, killed or tortured. So the irony goes without tragic consequences. This isn't Shakespeare, it's gritty 70s anti-hero plot.

Frankly, I can't realistically punish the players' characters for being evil pricks, because, in that setting, they aren't. Which makes me kind of upset, because the characters can pretty much get away with any crime not Chaos related. I'm not wholly cool with that.

Not every Inquisitor is an amoral bastard. There will be people in all levels of society who will disagree with immoral actions, even if they are justifiable. Lawkeepers will come down on lawbreakers. Corruption points represent a character's mind, body and soul being tainted by the ruinous powers. "Regular" moral decay should be roleplayed. If someone doesn't bat an eyelid at the death of thousands of innocents in the line of duty then he'll become cold and callous; human life has stopped becoming something precious to them, and they see it more as an expendable asset. People who do terrible things and don't feel remorse think differently from the average person, and it'll show in how they behave. If they spot this they in themselves can try and cover it up, though some might not bother. After all, they're the ones with the right mindset. Those who disagree with them are ignorant fools who haven't seen the true face of the galaxy.

And sociopathy can be a fine gate for the Dark Gods.

Snidesworth said:

This is precisely what I want.

There is a PC in my group who has brutally murdered innocent bystanders, sometimes with glee. He hasn't shown any remorse either.

Then again, he's shown compassion to his fellow retinue members.

The trick is to find a way in which this kind of behavior can have a cost in some shape or form. I'm pretty much out of ideas.

Snidesworth said:

However zealotry, aka religous sociopath, seems a job requirement for Inquisitors. It isn't necessarily that they are amoral but instead have a higher calling that trumps 'common' morals. There is a fine line from being cold and callous and simply seeing nothing wrong in what you are doing. For example should an Inquisitor feel remorse or satisfaction in a job well done for the destruction of a heretical planet or xeno colony? It isn't that human life has stopped becoming precious, it is that heretics and such have been dehumanized. There is a paradigm shift when the greater good moves from The Golden Rule to the Imperial Creed.

There are a lot of interesting ideas above that could be used to temp your sociopaths to the dark gods. The characters might not be repermanded by the Inquisition, but they do get noticed by individuals. Some may feel they have "gone too far" and destoryed valuable subjects/property for little reason. Some of these innocents could have pull, "Grand Admril Tokenhoff's beloved daughter was shopping there when you burned everyone in the arcade."

Others may be corrupted themselves, and reach out to these characters, as mentors and allies. Then bring in the corrupted drugs/weapons/and so on.

You might want to start closing the doors as "honorable" inquisitors turn against them and opening new doors that lead only to corruption and doom....

Necrozius said:

He clearly doesn't value human life. He only cares about his fellow acolytes because they're his friends and co-workers. Let's say the cell is witness to some great tragedy that cost thousands of lives. The other acolytes might be visibly bothered by it, or at least react to it. The sociopath, meanwhile, won't feel a thing. The loss of so much innocent life right in front of him doesn't affect him one iota. People will pick up on the very fact he's different to them and treat him accordingly (badly). That he's different in a clearly bad way will only make people dislike him more.

Rashid ad Din Sinan said:

Depends on the Inquisitor. They all know, to a man, what the job requires. They will undoubtebly become detached as they make the inevitable sacrifices. But there's a difference between acknowledging the deaths of thousands as a regretable but necessary sacrifice for the good of mankind and seeing it as a single pawn sacrificed in a great game of chess. Both the Eisenhorne novels and, to a lesser extent, the Ciaphas Cain ones show Inquisitors who aren't sociopathic despite being resolute enough to do what needs to be done. Even as he slips into Radicalism Eisenhorne does not become monsterous. Another example is a ship's captain in the first Grey Knight novel. He orders an unarmed ship, filled with thousands of pilgrims, to interpose itself between his vessel and a Chaos ship trying to ram it. They die horribly, but they buy him and his fleet some more time to fight the current threat. The captain is shown to feel remorse over the action, even though he knows the pilgrims died for the Emperor and that it was the best course of action he could have taken. That said, the saying "He who fights monsters should see that he does not become a monster himself" should always be in mind. After decades of hard decisions and necessary sacrifices such things will become commonplace to an Inquisitor. Will he make efforts to keep his humanity intact, or will he become an unfeeling monster whose job is to protect the Imperium?

Necrozius said:

A friend of mine once told me that one of the failings that can befall a GM is sense of detatchment from his players, in my case I would focus on my campaign worlds at the expense of my group's likes and dislikes. For example, I would see things in black and white (or in this case order and chaos) and neglect the grey shades in between. Rather than judge if a pc is corrupted by society's standards, judge the pc's corruption by his/her standards. Not all characters are the same, one could be a cold-hearted killer while another a meek, dutiful cleric. The former character will be well adjusted to all manner of inhumane acts and would not acrue any insanity/corruption (perhaps he/she posses some already) while the latter would acrue the insanity/corruption taint after a few or even a single deed of cruelty. The old addage, some are born bad and some are born good applies in my campaign. Admittedly, there may be a point where both characters become equal, but I personally advocate that each character should be evaluated individually, based on the specifics of their character creation and the players initial tastes. I am not suggesting that this strict standard should be applied to NPCs, just PCs (they are suppose to be "special" after all). If a character states at his/her creation that they are devout followers of the Imperial Cult and wants to protect their loved ones, then, in the course of their carreer, they become cold and callous, I believe an insanity or corruption point is warranted here and there. Just as in the real world, not all character growth will be positive. Just my two cents.

I'm a big believer in "Give them enough rope"....

Not everything needs a detailed mechanic, others have suggested similar and I would agree, in game corruption rather then artificial mechanics. After all its a "Role Play Game" not a table top game.

Character full decisions linked to the role the character has leed to arbitrary coruption points.

If a scum steals, no biggy, thats what you would expect, but if an arbitrator does.... naughty naughty!

In my game I have an amoral assassin. He kills with impunity, and why not, but if the other players commit mass murder without good reason (ie Bad Guy Declared Heretic, so is a valid target, and his henchmen unless they turn against him or atleast re-consider their possition!), they risk corruption points. If the Assassin however breaks his cread in some way (backs down from a fair fight or chickens out in some way) he is just as at risk.

I see corruption points as damage to the Psychy in some way by having to make the difficult choices, and I like to give those choices to the characters to make by sometimes putting them in those possitions.

Sometimes however things may be out of their obvious control, like when I plan to give them a corrupted blade to consider picking up and using, still their choice, but not an obvious one :-)

Working for the inquistition is always corruptive, manu older inquisitors walk the radicals path unwittingly for the greater good. In some cases they resist the temptations of chaos in others they fall.

One of my player characters for example tortured some innocent people to get information about something when they might had tried other ways... like talking to them lol. If this is not a basis to hit him with corruption points i dont lnow what.

But i guess it something the GM must take a stand for himself.

John Do: It sound to mee that this assasin you talk about at least must have some insanity points unless he wants to roll a die for everyone he kills. Just kidding. The example of "its okey for the assassin to kill alot but not the others" can be quite hard to balance and i think it is up to the Gm to say wether its okay to run down innocent civilians to get to the guy running away from you. (in my opinion this invites corruption points, empereor dos not liek!)

The assissin is a professional killer, and yes he does have more then a few physcological issues. I've not yet taken the oportunity to damage his mind further by missusing them however

Here is something I've done in my games: At character creation I ask each of the players to choose one of the seven deadly sins (Wrath, Envy, Pride, Lust, Gluttony, Sloth, Avarice) which best relates to their character - if they want to choose two I encourage it. Now, I tell them that if they play into their weakness in game they will recieve additional fate points, however, I can at any time require them to make a Will check - possibly modified - to resist tempation from that sin. If they fail, the character will engage in the activity against common sense, social propriety, whathaveyou. (within reason, a character won't walk into a horde of demons to get a gemstone, but he might break into a govenors office to steal that fine figurine he was admiring earlier; or seduce a local magistrate's daughter while on a diplomatic mission)

When played properly, this adds some fun and a depth of rp to the game. The trick is to not over use this against players, you want it to be a temptation, not a mailed glove to the face every session. If the pc's play well you will find them putting themselves in danger without the need for stat checks ... for which they likely deserve that extra fate point.

Jack of Tears said:

I too have used a similar mechanic. In my youth D&D dominated my roleplaying (the coloured boxed sets, not advanced). In the Mystara setting there was a Trait and Passion system that was detailed in Gaz 7: The Northern Reaches. As my rpg world expanded, I discovered that this system was borrowed from the Pendragon rpg. Essentially, you take two diametrically opposed traits such as Merciful vs Cruel, assign a numerical value (in this case a percentage) where a success favours the former trait and a failure leads to the latter trait. While some view this as limiting a players role playing, it is extremely useful in character development (especially for those newly indoctrinated into rpgs). I had the (mis)pleasure of playing a cowardly, lustful knight and found these rules invaluable to an enjoyable, albiet uncharacteristic to my personalty, experience. Fortunately, fate has smiled upon those of you who finds this system appealing, Luddite has converted these rules from Pendragon to the Dark Heresy game: www.darkreign40k.com Type "traits and passions" into the search bar. For those of you who have never been to Dark Reign, I assure you it will be worth the visit!

Jack of Tears said:

i like that idea and will take it in my game immediately. And i all ready know whit of my two pc's that is Wrath

Here’s the first idea that came to my mind. One of the most terrible thing that can happen is that an Inquisitor of the Ordo Malleus is seduced by chaos…

Imagine another Inquisitor, other than the one the PC’s currently work for, enters the picture. He begins working to acquire the PCs as his own acolytes. He sets himself up as a political rival of the PC’s Inquisitor and frustrates his efforts to do whatever work he does. His justification for this can be explained away;

“I believe your patron inquisitor to be corrupted by chaos and you (the acolytes) are FAR to valuable a commodity to fall under his influence.”

“Your patron Inquisitor is blind to the true threats to the Imperium and you have so much more potential… I can see in you the true light of the emperor.”

“My interests are not only for the good of the Imperium, but I have so much more power and authority to bestow upon you than your current employer. Why should you wallow in poverty when, with but a word from me, you can command entire battlfeets?”

Etc.

The PC’s eventually become enamored with what they are offered and begin to believe that their current Inquisitor is corrupt. The ACTUAL corrupt inquisitor could even frame the old one.

Once the PC’s are firmly under the sway of the new corrupt inquisitor, they are asked to do more and more debased and inhumane things in the name of the Inquisition. Perhaps they are ordered to infiltrate a cult which the corrupt inquisitor is a member of. The cult even knows that the PC’s are trying to infiltrate it under orders from it’s Inquisitorial member and works to present themselves as benevolent (no one does bad for the sake of bad until they’re thoroughly corrupt).

Eventually, the Inquistor asks the acolytes to do some truly evil things all in the name of the Inquisition. Perhaps they must deliver a virus bomb to an Imperial world because that world has evidence of corruption. Perhaps they are told to organize the assassination of several corrupt inquisitors (perhaps even their former employer).

With every act they gain more and more corruption points.

That’s how I’d do it.