- Dec 4, 2017
- 1,460
- 7,024
Not just different but has a more relaxed view on morality: feeling neutral or positive about promiscuity / obsessed with a certain fetish / cheating (but not necessarily) / willing to betray his ideals for temptation. Basically willing to do something that he would either criticize other people for or at least be worried for them at the start of the game. For example, he can joke about Perry being a voyeur (when he says he's okay just looking at Cherry without making a move on her), meaning that he thinks that voyeurism is a bit weird and probably shameful if it's with a girl you like. And yet, when Jeremy sends him photos of Alison being naughty, his lust overcomes him and he himself becomes a voyeur. That is the obvious example of corruption because Ian feels guilty pleasure about Jeremy sending pics of Alison without her permission.but this dosent make sens if ian starts as a normal guy and than has his fitness jurney and than beaing more like axel i would not call that corruption at all it seems like for you as long as a cheracter change different from his starting point it is considert corruption. Which I would definitly not agree with.
And yes, if Ian starts acting like a selfish asshole (and he considers Axel to be a selfish asshole), then it's corruption of Ian. Now, if he simply becomes a player but is open and respectful about it, accepting rejections and not pushing anybody, and not acting jealous towards girls he sleeps with, then I wouldn't call it corruption because while he'd be a player, yes, he'd be a morally responsible player who doesn't hurt anybody with his actions (including his friends who might have a crush on said girls, like Emma). It's just evolution of Ian who wants to be more confident and doesn't want to hurt himself with Gillian 2.0.
A corrupted person in a relationship might want to corrupt their partner, too, so they can both enjoy mindless sex and various debaucheries, be it via swinging or open relationship or a cuckold lifestyle. A corrupted individual doesn't mean 100% selfish individual without any integrity. They can still love their partner, but want sexual freedom, too. And if their partner doesn't share their view and acts jealous, they can break up (or take a break like Cindy did with Wade).I think its very unlikly if a cheracters that is sexually corrupted and is very lustful and keeps seeking more and more and more sexual kicks that they stay loyal at all because their lust and desires already took over them this is why its called corruption because there primal instinct for pleasure completly took control over their Brain ,logical thinking, decision making and love feelings thats why I said corruption and ntr kinda goes hand in hand if in a realationship.
Okay, I hear where you're coming from. Obviously the actual criminals are guilty while others can share responsibility but not the blame, it's not even a discussion. I guess our difference lies in who we see as the criminal in this analogy. You think it's the person doing the corruption, but I see the person being corrupted as a future criminal on their villain arc (IF they end up doing bad / irresponsible things according to their own starting morality). And because the person is on their villain arc I just don't see much point in finding the person guilty for making them a criminal (aka "We live in a society"), criminals aren't always pressured or coerced to do the crime, they choose to act based on external influence and their internal justification but they can only blame themselves for making that choice to go through with the crime.I have never denied that change isn't a prerequisite of corruption, I have only argued that not all change (and so not all influence) is corruption. I think the core of our disagreement is that I attribute to the act of "corrupting" a degree of malice, or at the very least recklessness, it is not something someone can "innocently" be the culprit of. You on the other hand argue the opposite, that corruption is merely any influence that results in change, and so whoever has the most influence is always the "most guilty" of corrupting a person.
It is the argument of "culpability" vs "responsability", is someone that is unwittingly an accessory for a crime just as guilty as the actual criminal just because they were an essential part of the execution of said crime?
One last thing (it's too engaging ). If you think of a person doing the corrupting as a criminal it paints the person getting corrupted as an innocent victim which robs them of agency. They're a human being with their own agency and they're making a choice when they do bad or irresponsible things. Lena can't blame Seymour for making her cheat on Ian (the moral action here is either to break up with Ian or just be honest with him and explain her problem if he promises to keep it a secret) or blame Jeremy's dick for making her treat Louise like trash and gaslight her into becoming a cuckquean. Just like Jeremy can't blame Lena for making him a bad friend to Ian or poor boyfriend to Louise if he can't man up to reject her and do the right thing. Just like Ian can't blame Cindy for being sexy or Wade for being a bad boyfriend or Axel for making his moves on her if he ends up banging Cindy and betraying Wade. Well, they can but it just wouldn't be mature or convincing.