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

Popular posts from this blog

The Balancing Act

Magic and Technology