Incorruptible Characters in SF

SF: discuss futuristic sci-fi series, ideas, and crossovers.

Moderator: NecronLord

Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Incorruptible Characters in SF

Post by Simon_Jester »

Bedlam wrote:Its an interesting point but is there a difference between a totally incorruptable individual and a automiton? If you can only possibly act in one way in any situation is that difference from being programed.

Is true incorruptablity incompatable with free will?
I'm not thinking purely of characters whose incorruptibility is the theoretical optimum/ideal. To take an example others have bandied about, Sam Vimes is, practically speaking, impossible to corrupt... but he's not theoretically incorruptible in the absolute sense, he has an internal mental life and he experiences temptations.
speaker-to-trolls wrote:
Shroom Man 777 wrote:Uh, what makes the incorruptible individual different from an automaton is that despite all the crap heaved up on him, he's still willing to go on and do the right thing or whatever, despite all the weakness of a human being and such. That's different from an unfeeling machine, mang.
It's a fine line to draw, actually, and it kind of sets you down the path of debating whether free will exists or not. A really admirable character would seem, to me, to be one who had the option to be corrupted, but always chooses not to be because their moral code prevents them from being so, if corruption is just not possible for them, psychologically speaking, I'd say they are more of an automaton. The thing is, where is the line between those two?
See above. Mechanical, theoretical incorruptibility, is rather different from 'human' incorruptibility. Some human characters display mechanical incorruptibility, but not enough that they should be dominating our discussion.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
Andras
Jedi Knight
Posts: 575
Joined: 2002-07-08 10:27am
Location: Waldorf, MD

Re: Incorruptible Characters in SF

Post by Andras »

Simon_Jester wrote:
On the other hand, this basic inner force can also be a compelling part of a character- in the end, Luke Skywalker triumphs in Star Wars more because of his unshakable faith in others and refusal to submit to the Emperor, not because he's especially good with a lightsaber or at Force-pushing people into walls.
Skywalker fell in Dark Empire

By this time, Luke Skywalker has reached Byss. There he meets face-to-face with the Emperor Reborn; Skywalker's attempt at killing him is thwarted when Palpatine reveals that his vigorous fresh clone body is even more skilled at lightsaber combat than is Luke himself. Faced with an impossible situation and deeply impressed by the power of the Emperor, his charismatic presence, his undoubted genius, and his deep knowledge of both sides of the Force, Luke acquiesces to becoming his apprentice.
Nuts!
Redshirt
Posts: 39
Joined: 2010-02-11 05:41pm
Location: Isla Vista, CA

Re: Incorruptible Characters in SF

Post by Nuts! »

Simon_Jester wrote:Skywalker fell in Dark Empire
It's the Extended Universe. Barring the generally fuckawesome Timothy Zahn books, I personally take it all as official fanfiction. :P


To answer the initial question, though, I think that what everyone's saying overall is that the "incorruptible" character is a perfectly good one as long as he/she/it is well-written. Does this incorruptible person have flaws or temptations that try to pull them from their path? If they don't, does following an absolute and uncompromising moral code hamstring them (i.e. make them an interesting character) in another way - present them with a moral dilemma, for instance?


To unashamedly steal borrow someone else's ideas, here's a quote taken from 1d4chan on paladins (pretty much the "incorruptible" stereotype)
There is none of that, "Oh well if you're truly sorry, there's nothing I can do." horseshit. No, he coup de graces your ass because he's a goddamn paladin. His job is killing evil. You know what his job doesn't entail? Being a sympathetic ear for every whiny N(eutral)E(vil) or C(haotic)N(eutral) or L(awful)E(vil) douchebag who's only being evil because the world is unfair to him or every punk that lets his own dislikes or laziness overcome his own personality. You know what unfair is? Being able to know what kind of person everyone is before you even talk to them. Smelling evil so potent on a motherfucker that you want to sink your fingers in his chest and pull that tar out until the screaming stops. Having the psychotic urge to murder people that you've never even met, for the sole reason that your God decided that you ought to be his right hand without your choice in the matter, that's unfair. But unlike Evil McBlacknails over there, that Paladin puts on his helmet, sharpens his sword, and then continues walking through crowds of people day by day, resisting the urge. Seeing evidence of injustice so black it makes him sick. Seeing murderers and rapists walk the street, watching good men hang as evil ones pull the lever. Saving his righteous violence for when the situation exactly, specifically, precisely calls for it. Surgically removing that which is most evil. Because he's a Paladin. And if he gave in to the urge, what would he be? Who will right the true wrongs if not he? It's not about not falling as a Paladin. It's about falling so fucking hard you crash through the planet and stand up on the other side.'
...and just like that, the character turns from "does the right thing by following the code" to "follows the code even though he's tempted to do more." Honestly, that quote pretty much made paladins, as an idea, for me.
Convicted for arson, murder, and writing bad fanfiction.
Eleventh Century Remnant
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2361
Joined: 2006-11-20 06:52am
Location: Scotland

Re: Incorruptible Characters in SF

Post by Eleventh Century Remnant »

Actually, there are bits of the EU that do a much better job of getting inside Luke Skywalker's head (and definitely of fanfiction, I'll try and dig up a few choice bits of TF.N for you in a moment) and furnishing it respectably than the movies did. He never really felt remotely like the saviour of the universe, to me; always seemed too screamy, panicky and whiny to carry the load. Too needy to be really incorruptible.

And no, that's not what I was saying at all; I said- if not in so many words, which is why I'm spelling it out now- that the human being is a political animal, a storytelling animal. That there is a degree of being inherently dodgy, devious and manipulative that comes naturally to us, how much and focused on what dependent on culture and upbringing; that most individuals' moral code is a however-gently moving target, shaped and changed by experience.

I don't think incorruptibility can really be any more than conditional; everything with a goal system, theoretically, has a price, and everyone who says they do not is, well, not necessarily lying; there is always propaganda for internal consumption, or honest self- delusion. For some people, the price- or the opportunity cost- is too high for anyone else to practically meet.

More rambling in a moment.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Incorruptible Characters in SF

Post by Simon_Jester »

Andras wrote:
Simon_Jester wrote:On the other hand, this basic inner force can also be a compelling part of a character- in the end, Luke Skywalker triumphs in Star Wars more because of his unshakable faith in others and refusal to submit to the Emperor, not because he's especially good with a lightsaber or at Force-pushing people into walls.
Skywalker fell in Dark Empire
Yeah, which was tacked on later and is in some very real sense 'outside' the mythos Lucas put together with the original trilogy. On some level I don't regard "movie Luke" and "EU Luke" as being the same man, and I don't think that's unreasonable of me.

(Can we please not get into a brawl over canon? I think any reasonably intelligent person will see what I'm getting at with the above, even if they don't agree)
Nuts! wrote:To unashamedly steal borrow someone else's ideas, here's a quote taken from 1d4chan on paladins (pretty much the "incorruptible" stereotype)
There is none of that, "Oh well if you're truly sorry, there's nothing I can do." horseshit. No, he coup de graces your ass because he's a goddamn paladin. His job is killing evil. You know what his job doesn't entail? Being a sympathetic ear for every whiny N(eutral)E(vil) or C(haotic)N(eutral) or L(awful)E(vil) douchebag who's only being evil because the world is unfair to him or every punk that lets his own dislikes or laziness overcome his own personality. You know what unfair is? Being able to know what kind of person everyone is before you even talk to them. Smelling evil so potent on a motherfucker that you want to sink your fingers in his chest and pull that tar out until the screaming stops. Having the psychotic urge to murder people that you've never even met, for the sole reason that your God decided that you ought to be his right hand without your choice in the matter, that's unfair. But unlike Evil McBlacknails over there, that Paladin puts on his helmet, sharpens his sword, and then continues walking through crowds of people day by day, resisting the urge. Seeing evidence of injustice so black it makes him sick. Seeing murderers and rapists walk the street, watching good men hang as evil ones pull the lever. Saving his righteous violence for when the situation exactly, specifically, precisely calls for it. Surgically removing that which is most evil. Because he's a Paladin. And if he gave in to the urge, what would he be? Who will right the true wrongs if not he? It's not about not falling as a Paladin. It's about falling so fucking hard you crash through the planet and stand up on the other side.'
...and just like that, the character turns from "does the right thing by following the code" to "follows the code even though he's tempted to do more." Honestly, that quote pretty much made paladins, as an idea, for me.
Oooh. This is a good one. A bit... dramatized, not the take on paladins I'd expect for everyone, but it definitely works.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
Nuts!
Redshirt
Posts: 39
Joined: 2010-02-11 05:41pm
Location: Isla Vista, CA

Re: Incorruptible Characters in SF

Post by Nuts! »

Simon_Jester wrote:Oooh. This is a good one. A bit... dramatized, not the take on paladins I'd expect for everyone, but it definitely works.
The paladin is a character that walks around and smites the shit out of stuff in the name of God. He's the hammiest character that ever hammed his way to Hamville :D
Convicted for arson, murder, and writing bad fanfiction.
User avatar
Patrick Degan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14847
Joined: 2002-07-15 08:06am
Location: Orleanian in exile

Re: Incorruptible Characters in SF

Post by Patrick Degan »

Daleks are fairly incorruptable:
The Doctor wrote:Do you know what a Dalek is, Van Statten? A Dalek is honest. It does what it was born to do for the survival of its species. That creature in your dungeon is better than you.

. . .

I thought you were the great expert, Doctor, if you're so impressive, why not just reason with this Dalek? It must be willing to negotiate, there must be something that it needs, everything needs something.

What's the nearest town?

Salt Lake City.

Population?

One million.

All dead. If the Dalek gets out, it'll murder every living creature. That's all it needs.

But why would it do that?

Because it honestly believes they should die. Human beings are different, and anything different is wrong. It's the ultimate in racial clensing, and you, Van Statten, you've let it loose!
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln

People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House

Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
Crazedwraith
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11950
Joined: 2003-04-10 03:45pm
Location: Cheshire, England

Re: Incorruptible Characters in SF

Post by Crazedwraith »

Ironically the Dalek in that episode was corrupted. Enough to be driven to self-destruction.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Incorruptible Characters in SF

Post by Simon_Jester »

Nuts! wrote:
Simon_Jester wrote:Oooh. This is a good one. A bit... dramatized, not the take on paladins I'd expect for everyone, but it definitely works.
The paladin is a character that walks around and smites the shit out of stuff in the name of God. He's the hammiest character that ever hammed his way to Hamville :D
Well, there are other models for the paladin- the quiet, unassumingly heroic 'righteous knight' type being the one which suggests itself to my mind. The character class doesn't have to come with a big dose of melodrama, though the interpretation that 'Detect Evil' is always on tends to encourage it.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
Omeganian
Jedi Knight
Posts: 547
Joined: 2008-03-08 10:38am
Location: Israel

Re: Incorruptible Characters in SF

Post by Omeganian »

Wilf Brim?
Q: How are children made in the TNG era Federation?

A: With power couplings. To explain, you shut down the power to the lights, and then, in the darkness, you have the usual TOS era coupling.
User avatar
Imperial Overlord
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11978
Joined: 2004-08-19 04:30am
Location: The Tower at Charm

Re: Incorruptible Characters in SF

Post by Imperial Overlord »

D&D style paladins fall easily. Anyone remember Jamie Lannister's speech about oaths ASOIF? There are so many oaths and they can so easily come into conflict. For Jamie he was oathsworn to uphold justice, give his life for an insane king, obey his father, protect the weak, and honour his family and they all came into conflict. Paladins are in an even worse position because they're sworn to serve a god. The interests of a god, the religion around said god (the relationship between the two varies according to source material), and justice can clash in unpleasant ways. The best literary example I can think of off the top of my head is Matt Stover's Caine Black Knife where things get really fucked up.
The Excellent Prismatic Spray. For when you absolutely, positively must kill a motherfucker. Accept no substitutions. Contact a magician of the later Aeons for details. Some conditions may apply.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Incorruptible Characters in SF

Post by Simon_Jester »

This depends on the version of the paladin.

I remember when paladins were sworn to fight honorably and uphold the good, but no specific religious requirements were implied. And I thought that was cool.

I remember when their ability to detect evil only worked on supernatural evils- so that a random evil guy drinking in a tavern and not doing anything evil wouldn't trigger it, which changed the entire dynamic of the ability and the class. And I thought that was cool too.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
Imperial Overlord
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11978
Joined: 2004-08-19 04:30am
Location: The Tower at Charm

Re: Incorruptible Characters in SF

Post by Imperial Overlord »

Sure it depends on the version, but the version you just mentioned is chock full of divine abilities and rigid rules of honour so we go back to my point. Anytime you have an emphasis on iron clad loyalty to oath taken, a chain of authority, and higher principles you can be got in a conflict of interest between oaths taken, the higher authority, and the noble principles. You only need two out of those three actually. What happens if I take an oath to protect the Kingdom of Fantasyland and it turns out that Fantasyland's best general is a douchebag who needs to die at the same time an orc horde is threatening? Welcome to Jamie Lannister's hot seat.

And detect evil always worked on mundane evils in D&D. Hell, go old school enough and each alignment had its own secret language.
The Excellent Prismatic Spray. For when you absolutely, positively must kill a motherfucker. Accept no substitutions. Contact a magician of the later Aeons for details. Some conditions may apply.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Incorruptible Characters in SF

Post by Simon_Jester »

Er. I could have sworn, but my copy of the 1e and 2e Player's Manuals isn't handy.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
Imperial Overlord
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11978
Joined: 2004-08-19 04:30am
Location: The Tower at Charm

Re: Incorruptible Characters in SF

Post by Imperial Overlord »

Simon_Jester wrote:Er. I could have sworn, but my copy of the 1e and 2e Player's Manuals isn't handy.
1st edition didn't get much into religion, but paladins were always divinely empowered warriors. 2nd edition was better in that regard, but D&D regularly fails to properly address the social and political implications of their game world. A pantheon of competing, interventionist gods who regularly grant super powers to their favored servants is pretty much glossed over in most settings. Paladins get their divine power from a god and that god has interests, so a Catch 22 situation can develop.
The Excellent Prismatic Spray. For when you absolutely, positively must kill a motherfucker. Accept no substitutions. Contact a magician of the later Aeons for details. Some conditions may apply.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Incorruptible Characters in SF

Post by Simon_Jester »

I was unclear- I was referring specifically to 'detect evil.'
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
Eleventh Century Remnant
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2361
Joined: 2006-11-20 06:52am
Location: Scotland

Re: Incorruptible Characters in SF

Post by Eleventh Century Remnant »

'Detect evil' requires a whole bunch of active definitions and decisions of what right and wrong, good and evil are that any player with a shred of imagination would baulk at being spoonfed, even if it was likely to turn out to be anything other than mawkishly preachy- and which to it's credit D&D never did, although perhaps they were too lazy.

Besides which, I've never met a D&D pantheon- except for the very early bits where they tried to rip off real and established-mythical religions, you know, the lawyered-out text with Chthulhu in the monster manual- that didn't seem that it was made up solely for the purpose of being part of a roleplaying game. No confusion, no overlap, no undergrowth, no real moral complexity- not even inspired silliness for most of them. 4th ed reaches rock bottom by having a god whose sole purpose is to empower paladins.

Also, we're looking at a real, genuine and deep total inability to understand the world they're supposed to be parroting. Rigid rules of the kind the system has did not exist in the minds of the people it's supposed to be modelling- principles (inconvenient things like thou shalt not kill, etc) often at odds with the necessities of life, intermittent enforcement, much interpretation needed- own judgement always required, and the court of public opinion always in session. Show me an incorruptible hero in pre- Tolkien myth and legend; there probably are some, but I bet none leaps off the top of the head- the overwhelming majority were devious, murderous, dodgy, chancing bastards. Certainly not Charlemagne's twelve paladins, the originals, which if they actually existed were certainly of the class which power corrupts.
User avatar
Big Orange
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7108
Joined: 2006-04-22 05:15pm
Location: Britain

Re: Incorruptible Characters in SF

Post by Big Orange »

I can say Princess Nausicaa from the anime movie and manga by Hayao Miyazaki is pretty much a incorruptible as they come, a rather earnest Mary Sue through and through (with the villainess/anti-heroine Lady Kushana being more interesting as a result).

More fantasy than sci-fi, but one of the incarnations of Link from A Link to the Past turned into a harmless bunny rabbit when entering the Dark World, a realm that turns people into what they really are at heart (either into dangerous monsters or ugly freaks).
'Alright guard, begin the unnecessarily slow moving dipping mechanism...' - Dr. Evil

'Secondly, I don't see why "income inequality" is a bad thing. Poverty is not an injustice. There is no such thing as causes for poverty, only causes for wealth. Poverty is not a wrong, but taking money from those who have it to equalize incomes is basically theft, which is wrong.' - Typical Randroid

'I think it's gone a little bit wrong.' - The Doctor
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Incorruptible Characters in SF

Post by Simon_Jester »

Eleventh Century Remnant wrote:'Detect evil' requires a whole bunch of active definitions and decisions of what right and wrong, good and evil are that any player with a shred of imagination would baulk at being spoonfed, even if it was likely to turn out to be anything other than mawkishly preachy- and which to it's credit D&D never did, although perhaps they were too lazy.
You could reasonably define an 'evil' sufficiently extreme that yes, assorted supernaturally-empowered individuals would find that being anywhere near it made their palms itch. It wouldn't be that difficult.

The merchant who short-changes his customers, beats his wife, or is only averse to stealing when it inconveniences him not to be, doesn't qualify- or shouldn't. But given a moment's thought about what a vampire really is, or the pyramids of skulls Tamerlane piled up in places he didn't care for... if you can't get a sense of fundamental wrongness out of that, something's missing in your head.

Which leads to some dark ironies, of course, the equivalent of a Catholic will-be-saint-someday getting those waves of supernatural evil off the dungeons of his own church's inquisition... but in and of itself, I don't think the idea's invalid. What skews the whole thing so badly is the moral rigidity that pigeonholes everything and implicitly bars the Designated Good Guys from ever doing anything horrid, not the idea that you can actually have something so horrible that it can be picked up on the supernatural radar of any decent empowered person in a ten mile radius.
Besides which, I've never met a D&D pantheon- except for the very early bits where they tried to rip off real and established-mythical religions, you know, the lawyered-out text with Chthulhu in the monster manual...
I have a version of that- well, strictly speaking my father does, but he never uses it and didn't notice when I nicked it for a two-year period.

Though I think they must have removed Cthulhu and friends from the list of pantheons- they're not there. Possibly a slightly later printing of Deities and Demigods?
that didn't seem that it was made up solely for the purpose of being part of a roleplaying game. No confusion, no overlap, no undergrowth, no real moral complexity- not even inspired silliness for most of them. 4th ed reaches rock bottom by having a god whose sole purpose is to empower paladins.

Also, we're looking at a real, genuine and deep total inability to understand the world they're supposed to be parroting. Rigid rules of the kind the system has did not exist in the minds of the people it's supposed to be modelling- principles (inconvenient things like thou shalt not kill, etc) often at odds with the necessities of life, intermittent enforcement, much interpretation needed- own judgement always required, and the court of public opinion always in session. Show me an incorruptible hero in pre- Tolkien myth and legend; there probably are some, but I bet none leaps off the top of the head- the overwhelming majority were devious, murderous, dodgy, chancing bastards. Certainly not Charlemagne's twelve paladins, the originals, which if they actually existed were certainly of the class which power corrupts.
Galahad? Just a thought... off the top of my head. ;)

But aye, therein lies the rub. D&D as we know it today, and arguably even in its early iterations, isn't a parroting or modeling of pre-industrial societies as they really existed, or even of those societies as they fantasized themselves- not Arthurian Britain and certainly not Dark Age Britain. It is, in essence, a sort of generalized mad-libs process for creating high fantasy adventures in the style of 20th century fiction. There's a reason Gygax cited Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser as inspirations, and as I recall cited them more often than he did the knights of the Round Table, really.

Again, the style of 20th century fiction. And that style has evolved away from the chancing-bastard model so common in mid-century (Conan, the aforesaid swordsmen of Lankhmar, et cetera) towards the artificially vivid moral clarity pioneered by Tolkein, and emulated so many times in other major influences on the genre.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
Post Reply