Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on May 31, 2021, 10:22:00 AMIs that where Bram Stoker got the idea for Dracula to hire Szgany (Romani) from?

I believe he studied the history of the region for his book. Vlad Dracula was apparently a master of asymmetric warfare and would make good use of all the resources available to him.

Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on May 31, 2021, 10:58:06 AM

Quote from: jhkim on May 30, 2021, 08:55:29 PM
From my view, the deals have to look enticing at the start - or the players simply won't want to accept them. There's no temptation. In the Masks campaign, we just abandoned a PC if they went mad, and burned or destroyed books if they seemed corrupting.

Tthe old black and white morality approach to Ravenloft was one of the things that made it work and made it interesting. Doesn't mean there wasn't nuance or conflict within that (you often faced truly horrible choices). But there was cosmic heft to the morality. Doing evil, corrupted you physically, mentally and spiritually. It wasn't something to adorn yourself with to make your character unique and stand out.

I don't feel like you've addressed my point about corruption earlier. You're suggesting a split of:

1) Morality is black and white, and corruption is clearly and explicitly punished.

2) There is no morality, and there are no consequences for corruption.

But my point is that in games with #1, there is no temptation. If morality is black and white and evil is punished, then it is obvious that corruption is the wrong choice, so no one would choose that. In my own horror games where corruption has featured, it has worked by not drawing things in such black and white. In order to be a temptation, there has to be an ambiguity to the choice.

I'm curious how corruption has featured in your horror games. Actually, I'll start a new thread on the topic, as it seems wider than the new Ravenloft book.

Quote from: jhkim on May 31, 2021, 02:45:35 PM

Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on May 31, 2021, 10:58:06 AM

Quote from: jhkim on May 30, 2021, 08:55:29 PM
From my view, the deals have to look enticing at the start - or the players simply won't want to accept them. There's no temptation. In the Masks campaign, we just abandoned a PC if they went mad, and burned or destroyed books if they seemed corrupting.

Tthe old black and white morality approach to Ravenloft was one of the things that made it work and made it interesting. Doesn't mean there wasn't nuance or conflict within that (you often faced truly horrible choices). But there was cosmic heft to the morality. Doing evil, corrupted you physically, mentally and spiritually. It wasn't something to adorn yourself with to make your character unique and stand out.

I don't feel like you've addressed my point about corruption earlier. You're suggesting a split of:

1) Morality is black and white, and corruption is clearly and explicitly punished.

2) There is no morality, and there are no consequences for corruption.

But my point is that in games with #1, there is no temptation. If morality is black and white and evil is punished, then it is obvious that corruption is the wrong choice, so no one would choose that. In my own horror games where corruption has featured, it has worked by not drawing things in such black and white. In order to be a temptation, there has to be an ambiguity to the choice.

I'm curious how corruption has featured in your horror games. Actually, I'll start a new thread on the topic, as it seems wider than the new Ravenloft book.

Ravenloft offered rewards and punishments in the black box. When you failed a powers check: you got power. It was baked into the system. There doesn't need to be ambiguity for temptation to exist. Also just because you have a setting with black and white morality, that doesn't mean everyone can perceive good and evil accurately. That is also baked into the setting. It was impossible to detect good or evil in classic Ravenloft. Good and evil existed, you just couldn't detect them through magic. By the same token, a player taking a course of action may not know the GM will regard it as evil. The player may feel the context of the situation warrants the action, and the GM believes it is still evil enough to attract the attention of the dark powers. And there are all kinds of reasons to commit evil actions. Some people commit evil because they are misguided (i.e. the witch hunter who thinks he is doing gods work and fighting the devil, but in reality is just burning or hanging innocent people). And that can definitely exist in Ravenloft (there was a whole domain based on it). But plenty commit evil out of hubris and other reasons. I think that is one of the reasons the black box mentioning the seven deadly sins was handy: a lot of what drove Strahd for example was envy and lust. There are plenty of people who very much believe in objective morality, and believe there are real punishments for committing actions deemed evil by their system of belief, who knowingly violate those rules and commit acts they themselves view as sinful. You can easily see a characters pride driving them to evil in a setting where they know evil is real for example. And there are always going to be practical reasons driving character choices in Ravenloft. It isn't like a powers check was a foregone conclusion. Just look at the real world outside of religious morality and think in terms of law. We have laws prohibiting theft. You get punished severely if you rob a bank and get caught. Yet people do it all the time. In Ravenloft there are lots of reasons you might knowingly do something evil despite knowing the land responds to evil. One it doesn't always respond. Presumably the evil action you are taking has some intrinsic reward on its own that makes it attractive, so it is a calculated risk. The percentage chance was 1-10% of the dark powers responding. And most checks were 1-2%. There are quite a few things people willingly do that come with a 1-2% risk. And the powers check itself, as I said, gives a bonus and a reward. Ultimately it corrupts you and turns you into a monster, and this isn't something the setting paints as desirable. But by that point you've lost a lot of humanity and self control (and reversing the process is painfully difficult to impossible).

Also fundamentally, I don't think we disagree all that much in principle: corruption should be a product of choice, and making the wrong choice. I think where I am coming from here, is when I see how they approached dark gifts, making them things you can choose, it is the wrong place to put choice. With old ravenloft you never got to select the curse and power you got as a result of a failed powers check, and they always happened after character creation during play as a result of actual decisions you made in the game. By front loading dark gifts, even if they come with a downside, it really nerfs that for me. It makes it more like taking a flaw in a game (which yes is bad but usually has a coolness factor the player also desires). To me that just isn't in keeping with what powers checks or the setting was about. Like I said it feels much more urban fantasy to me than the kind of very focused gothic horror you were getting in Ravenloft before.

The gist of temptation in general though is it has to appear as some type of "good" or it's not a temptation. Generally sin/evil is the result of someone prioritizing a lesser good at the expense of a greater one.

ex. the desire to live comfortably in this life (a good) justifies stealing what you want at the expense of the goods of other people being able to enjoy the fruits of their own labors, their incentive to continue producing if its all going to be wasted anyway (harming society and not just the person robbed) and, if you're Christian, also robbing yourself of an eternity in paradise (a greater long term personal good).

No one decides to do something obviously harmful to themselves unless they perceive some good. No one touches shit unless they have to. The suicidal harm themselves to attain the good of ending whatever distress they feel makes life not worth living.

So the same thing goes for the temptations of dark powers. They have to offer some perceived good or there's no point. In SWTOR there's an arc where several times throughout it the spirit of the Sith Emperor in your head stops time just as something awful seems about to occur (in one case a loyal companion is about to be cut down) and offers to step in and save you if you'll just hand over control for "a moment."

Each time he does help; though in a rather blunt and destructive manner. But later on in the arc there comes a point where, if you gave in on the previous occasions you don't get a choice on the third... the Emperor takes over whether you want him too or not and not only attacks your enemy, but kills a bunch of innocents with collateral damage (by contrast if you refused the past offers of power to help you can also refuse this one... or give in because it does make the fight easier, but it remains your choice).

That I think is an excellent use of dark power and temptation. The first use is "free" and offers a good (saving an ally), but the second use (this time to end a fight that isn't difficult but is time consuming) cements that the Emperor gets to take over because he wants to the third time it comes up (where the temptation is an extra dose revenge on a villain who stole five years of your life).

Every dark power/gift needs an obvious good associated with it or its just not going to be anything but cartoon evil.

Frankly, if it were me as GM, I'd NOT drop dark powers on PCs AFTER they've performed evil acts... those guys don't need any incentives to damn themselves. I'd drop them onto good PCs in dire straits for no cost... the first time. The real price is that the dark powers will engineer conflicts that easily be solved if you use the power, but each time you use it, there's now a price and each time the price is higher, but the situations engineered require it be used more and more.

The idea is that each price is the commission of some evil. Trivial at first, eventually absolute horrors done in the name of whatever good they're trying to use the power for.

At what point NPC status sets in is up to the GM, but one of my Mage games had a PC end up falling entirely to the Nephandi bit by bit until, in order to keep the power they had they were going to murder an innocent man (they were literally told so), and they did so while still fully under player control (they failed because of the other PCs but at that point I put the PC out the group's misery by having the Nephandi smother him in his hospital bed with the final words being "I promised my Lord a soul out of this... one soul or another.") and player only then realizing they'd been playing the villain of the story all this time.

That's what the right sort of temptation can do, convince a player they're the hero of the story even as they commit atrocities because they're convinced the benefit... the power... will lead to a greater good. THAT is genuine horror right there.

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 31, 2021, 04:52:46 PM
The gist of temptation in general though is it has to appear as some type of "good" or it's not a temptation. Generally sin/evil is the result of someone prioritizing a lesser good at the expense of a greater one.

Chris24601 - Thanks, that was great. I replied in the other thread focused on this topic...

https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/temptation-and-corruption-in-horror-games/msg1174876/#msg1174876

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 31, 2021, 04:52:46 PM
The gist of temptation in general though is it has to appear as some type of "good" or it's not a temptation. Generally sin/evil is the result of someone prioritizing a lesser good at the expense of a greater one.

I kind of agree, but I also think there is a blurring here of good and morally good. I might steel out of desperate need, or out of greed for something I think will add value to my life, but I don't know that you would have to see it as a morally good thing in order to commit the sin. When I've met people who are capable of these kinds of things there seem to be a few things that can be going on. One is they see a moral good in what they are doing (a good example of this might be Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar, where he rationalizes his actions as moral good). This seems to be what you are describing. But I also think a person might instead of rationalize something as good, rationalize the morality around it as meaningless or bad (i.e. the person who made this rule that we can't steal just wants to keep people like me down). Another approach is the person's desire for something they know is bad, overrides their sense of guilt. So they may be torn, and have to come to terms with what they are doing, but they continue to do it because they choose to meet their own desire (I think a character like Henry Hill in Goodfellas fits this a bit----where he accepts things like killing, which he seems to have some moral qualms about, because they are part of the lifestyle that gives him the things he wants). I think very few people would say they are actively doing evil, they do tend to rationalize what they do. But there are also people who really believe something is wrong, and do it then deal with the guilt later. And some people are just crazy and built completely wrong (i.e. sociopaths who can kill, have no compunction but also no desire to rationalize or explain themselves)

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 31, 2021, 04:52:46 PM
The gist of temptation in general though is it has to appear as some type of "good" or it's not a temptation. Generally sin/evil is the result of someone prioritizing a lesser good at the expense of a greater one.
...

I disagree, temptation exists when it fills a "Need, Want or Desire" for something.

People are inherently their own worst enemies.

As human beings we are subject to the temptations of the flesh. And we too often allow short term thinking to hold sway over what would be best for us as individuals in the long run.

Also, everything that Bedrockbrendan has said as well.

Quote from: Jaeger on June 01, 2021, 01:17:23 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 31, 2021, 04:52:46 PM
The gist of temptation in general though is it has to appear as some type of "good" or it's not a temptation. Generally sin/evil is the result of someone prioritizing a lesser good at the expense of a greater one.
...

I disagree, temptation exists when it fills a "Need, Want or Desire" for something.

People are inherently their own worst enemies.

As human beings we are subject to the temptations of the flesh. And we too often allow short term thinking to hold sway over what would be best for us as individuals in the long run.

Also, everything that Bedrockbrendan has said as well.

Those needs, wants and desires though are precisely the lesser goods being chosen over the greater goods that I'm talking about though. The pleasures of the flesh are a good (if you're Catholic then you believe God made sex pleasurable for a reason, its the abuse of it for selfish gain outside of a loving and committed relationship/marriage instead of as an act of mutual self-giving that is sinful, not sex).

Basically, if the Devil pops up offering shit sandwiches labeled as shit sandwiches, no one is going to take them up on that offer. But if he offers up a yummy yummy cheeseburger that's loaded down with growth hormones and other subtle toxins that destroy your health over the course of years, a lot of people will prioritize the "yummy cheeseburger" part and say of the toxins "that's only a problem later on and only if I eat too much. Right now its perfectly fine to enjoy the cheeseburger."

You can't tempt someone with something they don't see as a good thing.

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 01, 2021, 03:48:20 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on June 01, 2021, 01:17:23 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 31, 2021, 04:52:46 PM
The gist of temptation in general though is it has to appear as some type of "good" or it's not a temptation. Generally sin/evil is the result of someone prioritizing a lesser good at the expense of a greater one.
...

I disagree, temptation exists when it fills a "Need, Want or Desire" for something.

People are inherently their own worst enemies.

As human beings we are subject to the temptations of the flesh. And we too often allow short term thinking to hold sway over what would be best for us as individuals in the long run.

Also, everything that Bedrockbrendan has said as well.

Those needs, wants and desires though are precisely the lesser goods being chosen over the greater goods that I'm talking about though. The pleasures of the flesh are a good (if you're Catholic then you believe God made sex pleasurable for a reason, its the abuse of it for selfish gain outside of a loving and committed relationship/marriage instead of as an act of mutual self-giving that is sinful, not sex).

Basically, if the Devil pops up offering shit sandwiches labeled as shit sandwiches, no one is going to take them up on that offer. But if he offers up a yummy yummy cheeseburger that's loaded down with growth hormones and other subtle toxins that destroy your health over the course of years, a lot of people will prioritize the "yummy cheeseburger" part and say of the toxins "that's only a problem later on and only if I eat too much. Right now its perfectly fine to enjoy the cheeseburger."

You can't tempt someone with something they don't see as a good thing.

Something being morally good, and something being good because it is desirable or pleasurable are different things though. A delicious sandwich tastes good, and thus you would desire it. It isn't morally good or bad.

Quote from: Jaeger on June 01, 2021, 01:17:23 PM
I disagree, temptation exists when it fills a "Need, Want or Desire" for something.

People are inherently their own worst enemies.

I which case, simply give them power (with or without strings) and wait for it to corrupt them.

Replied about "temptations of the flesh" in the thread on temptations...

https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/temptation-and-corruption-in-horror-games/msg1174967/#msg1174967

moving my reply to an older post in the thread to new topic...