In the game I am running a PC has just breached the first threshold and has failed the corruption roll so now must roll a malignancy; there was some discussion with the group as to if fate points can be used (burning and temporary) and I told my group I would think on the issue between sessions and bring a ruling when we next meet.

I have a few questions on how other GMs deal with corruption rolls;

1. How do you deal with the initial corruption role once a threshold has been reached, do you allow fate points?  - My current thought on this is you can burn a permanent fate to ignore the failed corruption roll, but you cannot use a temporary fate point to reroll the corruption test.

2. How do you deal with the malignancy roll, do you allow fate points? I think that spending a temporary fate point here for a reroll is fair but what if the malignancy the PC gets destroys the 'look and feel' of their character. Roleplaying is about having fun and I do not want a PC to feel their character is ruined by one roll… this is the main headache for me.

Your thoughts and ideas are welcome…

With fate points, the only thing they explicitly let you re-roll are tests. So I might be fine with them spending a fate point to reroll the test itself, but not the table result for exactly what malignancy they get (which should be handled in secret by the GM anyway, so as to custom tailor it to the PC and the events surrounding the nature of their corruption).

So for 1, yes, I would allow the spending of a fate point to reroll the test.

As for 2, once again, I feel the malignancy roll itself should be handled in secret. Use the dice to determine severity, but create a malignancy that is appropriate to the character. Realize, malignancies should affect the look and feel of a character, these are Very Bad Things (tm).

If a player was that much against any of this, sure, I'd allow burning a fate point to totally remove and bypass any chance of getting the malignancy.

I agree that they should be allowed to burn a fate point to avoid the test entirely or in your players case avoid the malignancy. I don't think temporary fate points should be used on this.

In general accumulating a lot of corruption has been due to player actions and decisions throughout the campaign. A lot of things have gone on in the campaign that resulted in them having to make the roll in the first place. So I don't nessarily agree that it's one roll that decides the fate of the character as they probably could have avoided reaching this point altogether.

Not knowing (or caring) for the rules regarding this, I do not allow fatepoints in regard to "corruption roles".
On the other hand, I avoid incorporating elementsi n my game where the PC are dealt (larger) amounts of CP without providing them an option to avoid it.

In addition, I do not role Malignancies ( or more precisely: I will not role…it not has happend yet) but I sit down with my player and discuss options. While the final choice WILL be hampering the PC I do not want to ruin the fun for the player by simply allowing the dice to dictate something that could as well be something that is very in line with the players character concepts (and thereby might lead to a more enjoyable roleplay experience).

I would always talk it through.  So far whenever I have had to roll for a player I will tell them what they rolled and this has generally led to "Oooo that could be…"  If they really didn't like it I would certainly allow them to come up with alternatives.

on a related note, how does the Inquisition look upon Malignancies, and even Mutations?

In my game, due to a Mass Daemonic Possession (Psyker rolling very bad after a few 9s), the party aquired several malignancies, and one of them even got a mutation (deformed hands).

The mutant plans on cutting off his hands, and getting them replaced with bionics, but how will the Inquisition react to the malignancies? We have two players that cannot stand the light of the day, and another two with compulsive behavior / fell obsessions (drinking blood, eating corpses etc.)

Would the Inquisition take punitive measures?

Well, the guy cutting off his own hands, I think it would depend upon the inquisitor in regards to how they'd react. Some inquisitors might see it as a holy act of stripping the corruption from your flesh and be satisfied with the devotion of the acolyte while others may think that there is no such thing as "localized bodily corruption" and will want to burn the acolyte.

I'm not so sure about the drinking blood, but I'll hazard a guess and say most inquisitors will call it heresy. Eating corpses IS heresy, in my opinion as it is a violation of the holy human form.

The "don't like sunlight" thing, I'm pretty sure most inquisitors won't care as there are probably worlds in the imperium where the population all have that "mutation" and it has been declared within acceptable limits.

we've just completed the House if Dust and Ash, and our assassin has aquired a Halo Device!

will the Inquisition ever allow him to live…?

Delazar78 said:

Well, here's what I would do…

If the Inquisition found out about the Halo device I have them grab the assassin and put him in a special training and observation program. Essentially confiscate the players sheet and have him/her make a new character and then introduce the assassin later in the game as perhaps an ally slowly turning badguy.

Or something like that. But an item like that, I don't see how the inquisition would let the acolytes keep something like that.

 Can it be removed once you put it on? Or do you need to cut your arm off?

As far as I remember it can't be removed.

From what I read initially it can be removed, but after awhile it bonds with you.  How long until this takes effect is up to you as the GM.  For me, I always thought it took a few weeks to a month.  Unless or course the person stabbed himself in the heart with the device, or died with it in his possession, then the item would bond with you and resurrect you, in a sense.

For me if my PC's were very low ranked PC's going into the House of Dust and Ash, then upon exiting said area and reporting the incident to higher, a debriefing would of been done.  Immediately following or proceeding the debriefing a search of their possessions would of been done ensuring that they didn't "procure" something heretical in nature by "accident."  Once they reach higher ranks, then a certain trust might be established whereby the searches are no longer done, and the debriefings are less obtrusive.  Unless the PC is known for deceivery, of course.  Anyhoot, having a PC with a Halo Artifact is a recipe for disaster.  I do believe in Hostile Acquisitions for RT there are stats for a person turned into a Halo monster.  And yes, a PC turned into such a monster would no longer be a PC, IMHO.  Though you could have him play the best during certain events for cinematic purposes. 

Given that they turn you into a monster gradually I would certainly not let this go the full distance.  Instead their story has got to be how they deal with it/get rid of it.  Make this a challenge/pilgramige or something similar and it could be fun to play through.

As for the player with mutated hands…His idea of removing them and aquiring bionics is perfectly fine and i would not penalize that PC at all. 

As for the one who drinks blood..next to no inquisitor would actually call that heresy IF…IF..it was a death cult assassin ( for them this is NORMAL behavior ) as stated plainly in the books. Now if it was your avg guardsman…THEN id say a problem..or even an adept…Oh yes problem..lol So ultimately for that one it would depend on the PCs class as to whether or not it was considered an issue.

As for the cannibal…um yeah..that PC is pretty much screwed ( unless you let him burn a fate point to ignore the malignancy roll and retain the insanity points)

Side note it does give an option ( forget where i saw it at in the books ) for using XP to remove corruption AND malignancy points…at a rate of 100XP PER point of either corruption or malignancy…so it isnt really cheap but does give players an option for removing those points BEFORE they become an actual issue and without having to burn fate points to avoid getting shafted royally…

You could push for the blood drinking being a sign that the PC is destined to be inducted into a death cult.  Such a person would be sorely tested by the cult they were sent to I'd imagine…

Hi all,

Instead of starting a new thread I thiought to put my question/problem in this thread.

We are playing Dead Stars at the moment and our group's rank 6 Arbitrator just acquired his tenth Corruption Point thanks to the rather harsh Warp Shock rule and promptly failed his Malgnancy test despite a Fate Point induced reroll. He then rolled a 16 for the Ill-fortuned result on the table for Malignancies. This really is a bad roll, which sort of nothing adds to the flavour and instead just seem to penalize the PC for the sake of it.

Now my question. Do you think he can get rid of the Malignancy (according to the rules), if he somehow reduces his Corruption Points below 10 again? The reduction of Corruption Points is rules-wise a possibility through the use of some of the Transition Packages from Ascension or the rules therein for reducing Corruption Points by either increasing Insanity Points of the same amount, spending XP or sacrificing two permanent characteristic points.

Any ideas how to interpret this reduction of Corruption Points in regard to already acquired Malignancies?

Besides, what is the Armour of Contempt talent good for in fact?