Corrupted vs Pure

 So, what's stronger?  Corruption or Purity?
A trope I've seen often is that a region gets corrupted, the heroes come in, they destroy the corruption, but there's always some 'seed' of corruption that gets overlooked, and it spreads, and you have to deal with it all over again (Fern Gully's an excellent example).  Or, you defeat the corruption, and someone carries it within them.  Or whatever.

It's like ... you can't just have purity. There's always got to be something.
Which makes it feel like corruption is stronger than purity.
(Another trope is 'I've cast this zone of purity, but the corruption's too strong, I can't keep it up!')

I want to see the flip side of this.  Proof that purity is more the 'natural state', and as such the natural state always wins out in the end.  Without having to use outside influence. A corrupt zone with the manifestation of purity someplace, that slowly drives out the corruption and overtakes it, cleansing the region.

Or a region of corruption claims an area, but 'this person' carries a spark of purity from the region and eventually amasses a Force of Good which drives the corruption out.

Or some evil being's throwing up a ward against purity only to be overwhelmed and crushed by the nature of the region itself.

Oh, wait!  I hear someone say that this isn't good for storytelling. That there must be the threat of something 'evil' for good to overcome, and evil can't be completely abolished. Except I'm not talking about evil. I'm talking about corruption -- an unnatural state of nature and the environment. Yes, evil does tend towards using corruption, but that's like saying necromancy must be evil, when it's how it is used that determines this.

Left to its own devices ... which is stronger?  Corruption, or Purity?  And, why can't it be purity?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Balancing Act

Balance Balance might be the #1 thing talked about in gaming when you go into game theory and play. We talk about balanced rules, balanced parties, balanced encounters... Here's the thing. Mechanical balance isn't possible. Not really. Not without harming the game itself. Because for true 'mechanical balance', you need to have the mechanics control the decisions that the players make - right at character creation. It needs to control the choices players can make in an encounter. It needs to control the choices the characters make in the setting. It needs to control the choices the characters make as they level up. What gear they get. What bonuses they get. Who they encounter. What they can get from each encounter. What they can gather out in the world. The characters get pushed into smaller and smaller boxes, with less and less choices, all in the name of 'balance'. And what this does is make the character sheet really bland, and the mechanics really bland. You
Read more

Tainted with... Good?

You've heard the stories many times before. The land is corrupted and foul things rise up to torment humanity. A dark god rebels and spawns evil beings across the land. An evil sorcerer crafts an artifact that twists all who use it. Cool, fine, we've been down this path thousands of times. But why not the other way? A land blessed and divine things rise up? A god of light descends and spawns angelic beings across the land. A good priest crafts an artifact that guides others to the light? Consider the Story of Garg and Moonslicer But how would this be a 'bad thing', you might wonder? Where's the conflict that will drive the story? Well, that it needs to create conflict isn't a given. Not everything has to cause people drama and angst. But if you absolutely must -- it's unbalancing. A land with such an abundance of prosperity draws the attention of nations that don't have such benefits, and that can lead to war. Or you have a population that think they kno
Read more

It doesn't have to be about combat

Saw a post on FaceBook today, by a GM asking other GMs how to get the PCs to actually engage in combat -- the GM was upset that the players were going for non-combat solutions to their encounters. Personally? Let them have their non-combat solutions. If the PCs are anti-murder hobo, why not let them? Another GM wondered at hearing the players drive the story, and responded with, "what, I should just suck it up? My desires don't matter?" That's a pretty raw take of the situation, so here's my thoughts: 1) The GM's desires matter at the table. However... 2) The players drive the story. And their desires matter to. And what you need is equilibrium. You want combat? Sure, put in combat. There's some people who just don't listen to reason - they're there to have a fight, and trying to talk them out of it pisses them off more. Go for it. But if the players don't want combat? Then hold back on the combat -- let them have their roleplay. This is a role
Read more