Incorruptible Characters in SF

[Simon_Jester]

I've been thinking about this recently, and one subtype of character that seems to recur, to pop up over and over and yet not pop up in some of the places you'd expect, is the "incorruptible." Some person whose physical and mental abilities may or may not be all that impressive, who may be a superhero or may be a mundane, may be a genius or a fool... but their one abiding quality is that they will not crack. Bribes, the lure of power, torture- all seem to bounce right off.

On the one hand, this is a very exaggerated character type in some cases- sometimes the character even draws mockery from within their own setting, as when a Lensman of the Galactic Patrol from Doc Smith's old pulps gets called a "sublimated Boy Scout" by a drug-runner trying to seduce him.

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. There are plenty of other examples of this too, like the short story The Long Watch, by Heinlein.

I'd like to know what people think about the role of incorruptibility in fiction. Are characters made more or less interesting by this quality? Or does it depend on how the quality is portrayed?

(Characters like this in other genres are worth mentioning too; SF is my primary focus, but not the only place you can find such individuals).

[Eleas]

I'd like to know what people think about the role of incorruptibility in fiction. Are characters made more or less interesting by this quality? Or does it depend on how the quality is portrayed?

(Characters like this in other genres are worth mentioning too; SF is my primary focus, but not the only place you can find such individuals).

It's a thin line to walk. On the one hand, flaws are often what makes a character interesting. On the other, one can use incorruptibility and/or flawless nobility in interesting ways to explore different themes than one could if the character was corruptible and flawed.

For an example of a character made boring by such traits, take Richard Rahl from the Sword of Truth series (assuming for the sake of argument that the writer's intent is what matters as opposed to the end result). Richard is always right, so there is no grey area or inner conflict that does not involve obviously bullshit setpieces.

In contrast, take characters such as Modesty Blaise (the novels) or Rob Roy (the Liam Neeson movie). Modesty Blaise's incorruptibility in terms of her own character is used to great effect in the books, showing us her native ability to persevere and soldier on in the face of anything but also how alien her mindset is. Rob Roy's incorruptibility leads him into a futile war that he's destined to lose, only for his wife to intervene in the eleventh hour to solve the matter in a less than honourable way.

I suppose it comes down to the effect you want to create. If you don't have a clear purpose other than make your character awesome, the work will most likely suffer for it.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Maybe won't qualify as "SF"
But thee most incorruptible people I know in Fiction would have to be a toss up between Sam Vimes And of course Captain Carrot

Again not SF, but as incorruptible as you can get.

[Simon_Jester]

The incorruptible character is not necessarily always right. They can certainly make mistakes, try to do something stupid, wind up having to defer to an outside party's judgment, and so on.

What distinguishes the incorruptible character is that they cannot be swayed from their course of action by most of the normal means. "Never give in, never give in, never; never; never; never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense.”

Which is not to say they're always right, but if they're a decent person means they will nearly always be righteous.

While we're at it, what about villains? The incorruptible villain is or could be an interesting personality. They're not ruled by some petty thing like a desire for personal power, they have that force of will, they genuinely think they are working for something larger than themselves... like Robespierre, who was famously called "the Incorruptible."

[ANGELUS]

Not SciFi, but how about Rorschach from Watchmen?

Nite-Owl: Rorschach...? Rorschach, wait! Where are you going? This is too big to be hard-assed about! We have to compromise!
Rorschach: No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise.

Even knowing that Ozimandiaz's actions prevented nuclear war and saved millions (probably billions) of lives, even knowing that Dr. Manhattan would kill him to prevent him from spreading the thruth, he was not willing to compromise... This goes for both the graphic novel and the movie versions...

[Darmalus]

How about Judge Dredd? I only saw the movie and it's been a while, but he seemed pretty dedicated to "The Law" and I don't recall him having any real doubts about his purpose.

The old Jedi order might count, falling to corruption was considered rather exceptional, but I'm not sure that's what you're looking for.

[TOSDOC]

I used to feel (subconsciously?) that incorruptibility was a necessary trait of a good fictional hero/heroine. Then I saw Farscape, and was hardpressed to find a single character that did not have his or her price in one way or another, which made for some very interesting story lines and twists. Everyone's personal agenda was always interfering in some way or another, and some of the consequences were quite deadly. It was also how the heroes could still somehow manage to cooperate that was interesting and kept me returning to the show again. So I do think an incorruptible character, while an interesting concept and fun in fiction, isn't quite as interesting as a character who certainly has his/her principles but reveals a certain point where they might consider breaking them, however extreme.

[Simon_Jester]

On the other hand, a character who's easily bought out, who fights for nothing in particular and cares for nothing in particular, usually isn't very interesting- Just Another Antihero, whether that be in the "dark-heroic" sense or in the "utterly lame and lacking in any quality of heroism" existential sense.

There's tradeoffs all along the scale of literary character.

[Kingmaker]

I think an incorruptible character can be just as interesting as a highly corruptible one. The problem in either case is when their behavior is left largely unexamined. Try taking a deep look at why the character has this borderline inhuman sense righteousness or duty or whatever, and how that affects their life and the people around. For example, people find Batman more interesting than Superman for this reason (in my experience).

a character who's easily bought out, who fights for nothing in particular and cares for nothing in particular, usually isn't very interesting

This is because a lot of writers confuse morally ambiguous with interesting/mature. A character like this just a different flavor of bland than that the flawless hero. One is a 2-dimension pastel saint, the other 2-dimensional passionless loser. Regardless of their moral status, you want your characters to intense, whether that means bright, dark, or stark.

[Themightytom]

John Sheridan from Babylon 5 seems pretty incorruptible, look at his mantras

Never start a fight but always finish it

Always be willing to fight for what *you* believe in. It doesn't matter if a thousand people agree with you or one person agrees with you. It doesn't matter if you stand completely alone. Fight for what *you* believe.

etc.

Also Malcolm Reynolds from Firefly. "they will not crack" might is probably in his character bio.

[speaker-to-trolls]

Using the word 'incorruptible' kind of gives the impression that there is absolutely no way that these characters could ever be corrupted, which gice the impression that they're boring, but what you actually mean if you're including some of these characters, is uncorrupted by the end of the story. The OP mentions Luke Skywalker, for instance. He doesn't succumb to the dark side in the end because of hope and love and faith in his friends and so on, but he comes pretty close in the end. Just because a hero doesn't give in to temptation doesn't mean they can't be genuinely tempted or doubt themselves.

People like Lensmen are a little different, since we have an omniscient authority telling us that, yes, they are genuinely, completely incorruptible in all instances always forever everywhere ever stop asking and trust me! I'm a giant floating brain you little punk!
I found that a bit annoying, and a bit too perfect, but to be honest that may just be that Doc Smith's writing kind of grates on me.

[Shroom Man 777]

Would those crazier Space Marines in 40k, who do not fall to Chaos but go on killfucking people in the grimdrakstrak future where there is only war, count?

[Simon_Jester]

Using the word 'incorruptible' kind of gives the impression that there is absolutely no way that these characters could ever be corrupted, which gice the impression that they're boring, but what you actually mean if you're including some of these characters, is uncorrupted by the end of the story. The OP mentions Luke Skywalker, for instance. He doesn't succumb to the dark side in the end because of hope and love and faith in his friends and so on, but he comes pretty close in the end. Just because a hero doesn't give in to temptation doesn't mean they can't be genuinely tempted or doubt themselves.

People like Lensmen are a little different, since we have an omniscient authority telling us that, yes, they are genuinely, completely incorruptible in all instances always forever everywhere ever stop asking and trust me! I'm a giant floating brain you little punk!
I found that a bit annoying, and a bit too perfect, but to be honest that may just be that Doc Smith's writing kind of grates on me.

To me, the term can embrace both categories- the character who's incorruptible even in theory, though, needs more subtle handling to be compelling. At that point you start exploring just what kind of thought processes could create such behavior- which is more interesting than watching some hypothetical paladin simply refuse all temptation.

Smith didn't really rise to that challenge, but then he wasn't writing that kind of story; the heavy use of absolutes (absolute loyalty, absolute power, absolute tyranny versus his own notions of absolute freedom...) is part of a literary model that's since fallen out of favor.

[Eleventh Century Remnant]

Incorruptibility is one of those concepts that develops more shades of meaning the closer you look at it, I think; I also think that it readily reduces to absurdity- how far is it possible to go down that path before you get to the point that a character is so devoted to their moral code that they become too trapped in it to exploit opportunities to actually further it?
Before, for that matter, and as human cultures painfully often do, serving the process becomes indistinguishable from the end in itself, largely taking over from the process the end was intended to serve? I'm thinking of all things administrative here, how bureaucracy always seems to become such.

Integrity can be the enemy of intelligence, if you look at it like that; To use an example from the Lensman series, the man himself, Kim Kinnison. I would argue that he was corruptible in that way, because he did break with tradition- lensmen always go in? Really? He drastically rethought his own methods, did things very differently from the common run of his peers, defying the means that had become the norm and the code, and an end in themself, in order to serve the greater end of victory for Civilisation.
This before we go on to the metaconsiderations of what it actually means, can civilisation be defended by civilised means, how much hypocrisy is there in the stance of the Patrol to begin with, does freedom include freedom for the corrupt, and so forth.

Never give in may also mean never give and take, too; to take the obvious example, the hopelessly underpaid British ministerial system and proto- civil service from seventeenth to mid nineteenth centuries, where it was generally accepted that everyone involved would take whatever opportunities their duties offered for graft, that private enterprise on the side would be omnipresent, and the generally accepted definition of "corrupt" was that the individual involved did too little for the country to justify the amount of money they were stealing.
Arguably, this worked a damned sight better in terms of promoting freedom and prosperity than the system we've ended up with since, although neither harnessed, creative corruption or disciplined integrity are without their lacunae and their hideous cockups. Is integrity the enemy of prosperity, too, then?

Dredd is an interesting example- because even though they call him Old Stone Face, he has his doubts, and he has probably rather more than most of his colleagues a view of the end his principles are supposed to serve. He actually took the Long Walk himself, just before Necropolis, because he could no longer justify to himself the brutality, especially the random brutality, of the system; at one point before that supported, rammed through against objections (and murder attempts) from other judges, a referendum on the judicial system because he felt he had to know if the people were willing to accept the system, if he was to go on.

So yes, I suppose there is a further question there, incorruptibility of ends or incorruptibility of means- and from the writing point of view, how they got to be that way is the question that more than any other it is genuinely useful to answer, how people can be the way they are and what makes them that way. Which is a bloody good question to ask of Kim Kinnison, actually, and of Vimes.

[streetad]

Maybe won't qualify as "SF"
But thee most incorruptible people I know in Fiction would have to be a toss up between Sam Vimes And of course Captain Carrot

Again not SF, but as incorruptible as you can get.

These two are good examples of the different ways it can be done. Vimes is portrayed as a character seething with anger at the injustice of the world - he believes that if he doesn't hold himself up to a very high standard of integrity at all times, he could very easily snap and, well, it's a slippery slope from there. This manifests in bloody-minded intransigence and refusal to compromise. Because of this he is somewhat easy to predict, and he often finds himself manipulated by other characters (most notably Vetineri) who know exactly how he is likely to react in a given situation.

Carrot is a walking deconstruction of the classical fairy-tale prince, with Incorruptible Pure Pureness beaming from every orifice. Taken alone, he is something of a dull character; if I recall correctly Pratchett has stated somewhere that he was initially meant to be the focus character of Guards, Guards, but he found Vimes much more interesting to write. He is used to make a point about how such an individual might not actually be the best person to run a government, nor would they have any desire to try. Later books that feature Carrot do flesh him out a bit - he does have his flaws, being somewhat naive and quixotic.

[wautd]

Space marines like Nathaniel Garro or Garviel Loken perhaps?

[Drooling Iguana]

I think the T-800 from the first Terminator movie would probably be the best example of this trope. Not even having his skin burnt off and being blown in half could stop him from carrying out his mission.

[Eleas]

The Operative from Serenity. As Inara put it, he's "devout" in his belief in the greater good; so devout, in fact, that it took conclusive proof of the Alliance failing in its stated goal for him to stand down. Characteristic of him is that he sees himself as essentially selfless, in that he considers himself unworthy of living in the perfect world the Alliance would create.

[Simon_Jester]

I think the T-800 from the first Terminator movie would probably be the best example of this trope. Not even having his skin burnt off and being blown in half could stop him from carrying out his mission.

The T-800 is a machine, though. One expects a piece of machinery (even an intelligent one) to keep trying to do its job until it's been battered until incapable of doing so.

When a man does the same thing, it's usually a sign of a higher degree of devotion.

Another factor in play here is that I'm not just thinking about physical dedication to performing a task- the qualities I'm trying to look at here are more mental than physical. This is about people who will not crack* psychologically, not necessarily people who can keep moving around and fighting with their arm blown off. Mental integrity, not tensile integrity.

*Or, at any rate, do not crack.

[Eleventh Century Remnant]

The problem I have with Vimes is that at the start of Guards, Guards, he's essentially a broken man; he's been failing to live up to that code, he's been a defeated thing utterly prevented by the society around him from putting that into practise, for what must be the actual majority of his career in fact.
As a character, he evolves backwards, going from a mutilated wreck to a shining hero. His behaviour off camera, the track of his life, fails to make sense in light of what actually happens- the man who became Commander Sir Samuel Vimes should not have let himself ever reach the rock- bottom depths of Captain Vimes of the Night Watch without damn' well standing up and fighting back somewhere along the way.

Now, Vetinari- there's an interesting case. Looking at the balance of what he does and what he gets out of it, he is on the face of it extremely corrupt- always willing to deal, always with a plan and a scheme; but look how his plans and schemes work out. He has danced and dealt with the devil so successfully that he has made the devil do good- some of the most corrupt and brutal elements of the city are effectively pillars of order and civility under his rule. Where does he fit on the scale?


Oh, and I should point out that in the above post of mine, I'm arguing several shades of opinion beyond what I personally believe or would be prepared to vote for, just for the sake of the argument.
Basically hoping to lead in, in that bit about the civil service, into the consideration that the old system could not have survived into the industrial era, that the rules change as the situation changes- and from there into wondering about what integrity is, in the moral equivalent of a non- Euclidean universe, and where the rules come from.

[Sinewmire]

The Operative from Serenity. As Inara put it, he's "devout" in his belief in the greater good; so devout, in fact, that it took conclusive proof of the Alliance failing in its stated goal for him to stand down. Characteristic of him is that he sees himself as essentially selfless, in that he considers himself unworthy of living in the perfect world the Alliance would create.

I'd disagree there. He's the ultimate in corrupt - someone willing to shelve any personal sense of right, wrong or responsibility and place it in the hands of a higher authority. Devout in his belief is absolutely right. He is willing to commit atrocities that he knows are thoroughly evil because they are demanded to achieve the better future laid down by his superiors.

He is utterly destroyed when it is demonstrated the higher authority he has suspended all judgement in the service of, are guilty of making the "better world" much much worse.

He's a fundamentalist. He believes God (the Alliance) will grant heaven (the "better world") to mankind if only they will suspend all judgement and do what they say, regardless of right or wrong.

Mal is certainly not incorruptible either: we see him at his lowest ebb in the first scenes of Serenity, where he pushes the man fleeing reavers off their hovercraft. He was unwilling to even take a risk to save a man from a horrible horrible fate.

[The Cooler King]

I'm not sure comics count in this case, but what about Captain America? He's about as incorruptible as they come.

Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world - 'No, you move.'"

Optimus Prime, in his various incarnations, comes to mind as well.

[Bedlam]

I think the T-800 from the first Terminator movie would probably be the best example of this trope. Not even having his skin burnt off and being blown in half could stop him from carrying out his mission.

The T-800 is a machine, though. One expects a piece of machinery (even an intelligent one) to keep trying to do its job until it's been battered until incapable of doing so.

When a man does the same thing, it's usually a sign of a higher degree of devotion.

Another factor in play here is that I'm not just thinking about physical dedication to performing a task- the qualities I'm trying to look at here are more mental than physical. This is about people who will not crack* psychologically, not necessarily people who can keep moving around and fighting with their arm blown off. Mental integrity, not tensile integrity.

*Or, at any rate, do not crack.

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?

[Shroom Man 777]

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.

[speaker-to-trolls]

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?

So, for instance, I'll go back to the example of Luke Skywalker. Near the end of Return of the Jedi he very nearly chops his father to pieces in a rage because he's afraid for the safety of his friends and his sister, but at the end stops himself because that would be giving in to corruption. He could have given in, but he decided not to. Now, the more automatic version would be someone like those space marines you mentioned earlier, not necessarily even the normal ones, but guys like the Grey Knights or those guys who guard the Emperor's Palace, who are so thoroughly indoctrinated and inculcated into their faith that they might not be capable of wanting to be corrupted anymore.

In reality whether you come across as one or the other is more a matter of how the writing handles it, it's quite tricky to effectively talk about an admirable hero who still has the potential to go to the dark side.