Civil Protection corruption

[Madcombat]

I want to start a discussion about peoples opinions regarding the civil protection and the corruptibility of it's officers in-game as characters.

Let me start by saying that many servers lack corrupted officers within' the ranks who take bribes to look the other way, whether it be dealing with a natural criminal or a exchange with a resistance operative. The reason I feel for this is genuinely quite simply, many people who play a officer in the civil protection seek to be promoted to a higher rank and thus' naturally the only pathway to achieving a higher rank is by playing a flat-oppressive officer who is entirely loyal and indoctrinated to the cause of their overlords. I would like to preface my argument with saying that whilst there should be a degree of officers who're clean, having a entire force of officers who don't seem to vary in any political/moral belief isn't quite conducive to roleplay.

The Universal Union in roleplay acts as a antagonist faction to not only the resistance players but also the citizenry, is it truly wise to have only jack-booted officers who are entirely lawful in nature? Does it bode well for roleplay when it comes to the citizenry when they know they have no way out of a situation they might land their way into? I'd like to argue that every civil protection officer isn't a sociopath who takes on his role out of love for the union but out of necessity to survive with a degree of fear to boot. Thus' I would argue that perhaps it might be ideal for those in charge of the combine to look into pushing some of their players into playing the role of a corruptible officer on the street who might look the other way in exchange for bribes or "Dealing" with a witness of particular incidents.

I expect people to disagree heavily, believing that all officers are absolutely loyal to the core. I expect some people to take offense to the idea they should play this role (Though I am not asking you, merely to asking you to consider it.)

Regardless, I am looking for a discussion on this matter and would like to hear what the community thinks on the nature of corruptible civil protection officers.

 

[Sexy Frog]

Personally, I fully support having corrupt CP. I think its something that makes for a truly dynamic RP experience. The duality of man truly captured in a character, so to speak; so long as it's done tastefully. I was actually planning on doing this, actually. But I will touch on a point you mentioned in your post that will prevent many people from doing it.

The reason I feel for this is genuinely quite simply, many people who play a officer in the civil protection seek to be promoted to a higher rank and thus' naturally the only pathway to achieving a higher rank is by playing a flat-oppressive officer who is entirely loyal and indoctrinated to the cause of their overlords.

Simply put, this and the fact that people would be hard pressed to risk a character that they sank hours into in order to even get a unit in the first place are the reason it is so rarely done. This is probably going to be further compounded in Willard's server mainly because people have to amass a button of LPs in order to even apply. In most servers, you wipe a few windows and slap a half-assed application on the forums and you're pretty much guaranteed a unit. Here it seems like you actually have to put in some effort and get some development in before you end up with the unit.

So, basically the only way someone is going to end up doing it is if:
A) They made the character with the sole intent of being a corrupt unit
or
B) They are purely in it for the RP like some kind of sociopath and genuinely either don't care what happens to their character or are willing to accept PKs for the sake of RP.

Needless to say, there are many deterrents that keep people from even thinking about doing this. Namely Internal Affair mechanics, Black Marks, OWR, etc. It can be argued that consequences are obviously necessary and if you end up getting caught and PKd or punished in general that's on you and you should have done better and to an extent thats true. But I think it's important to look at the bigger picture as well. It's the same logic of going ahead and having Civil Protection instantly rush in and squash all Citizen RP because it's malignant ICly. It's fair game, but you DO and SHOULD look the other way from time to time in order to facilitate good, interesting RP. Corruption is something that is reasonably possible and can make Citizen RP that much more interesting for other people. So instead of focusing on keeping a holistic, and otherwise sterile CP environment free of any wrong think (Which would be understandable if this was meant to be hyper-realistic....which it isn't) it's more important to focusing on using the option of corruption (WHICH IS NOT THE SAME AS GOING ROGUE) as another tool in the arsenal of making Citizen RP that much more versatile and dynamic.

Keep in mind being corrupt is entirely the choice of the unit and allows for Citizens to have to tip toe and really think what they can and can't get away with and who they can and can't bribe in order to get away with that thing.

 

[cunt]

People are allowed to be corrupt as cops as much as they want. It's just that taking bribes is mostly pointless on CPs because you end up with absurd amounts of money either way. I suppose there's other ways of payment, but citizen chars will generally never bring up stuff like bribes in fear of their character getting merked for that very reason.

Regardless, a lot of people end up playing as corrupt cops anyways. Not in the way of accepting bribes, but in the ways of fucking over people they don't like, letting people off with charges that they do like and so on.

I wouldn't say it should be pushed onto CP players to be corrupt though. Pushing that CPs shouldn't be boring, lifeless bastards however? Sure.

 

[Sexy Frog]

People are allowed to be corrupt as cops as much as they want. It's just that taking bribes is mostly pointless on CPs because you end up with absurd amounts of money either way. I suppose there's other ways of payment, but citizen chars will generally never bring up stuff like bribes in fear of their character getting merked for that very reason.

Regardless, a lot of people end up playing as corrupt cops anyways. Not in the way of accepting bribes, but in the ways of fucking over people they don't like, letting people off with charges that they do like and so on.

I wouldn't say it should be pushed onto CP players to be corrupt though. Pushing that CPs shouldn't be boring, lifeless bastards however? Sure.

It would be nice if CP had a use for the disgusting amounts of money they end up with. Maybe bribery would be more common and more commonly accepted.

 

[AdamCF]

I like having a few corrupt CPs, but it seems like too much of a risk as you don’t gain anything. Maybe a slightly higher chance of not being immediately killed if you’re captured + some respect from a couple civs. But it’s not worth losing an entire character over. Generally, I only see corrupt CPs who have no character development and are the “I joined combine but I am not a combine! I love rebel!” CPs who couldn’t convince the headcop to give them rogue auths. Obviously this isn’t all of them, but it’s a large majority. My point is that people aren’t willing to lose characters they’ve sunk hours into developing

But yeah, it’s too much of a risk for develped characters to be corrupt. No reward, a lot of risk.

 

[AdamCF]

It would be nice if CP had a use for the disgusting amounts of money they end up with. Maybe bribery would be more common and more commonly accepted.

The only thing I’m able to think of is hiring citizens to do stuff for you

 

[Deleted user]

A bit of a disclaimer here. While a cop (even tho he has a higher pay than anybody he will ever encounter, most of the times), most of this corruption will be dealt with icly, hence why the RLs are put in place, together the overseers. Sometimes cps will prolly let some people they like let go or whatever and that aint really a big issues, the main problem is borderline rogue activity that you need permission from the leads to achieve.

Your standard cp, while you mainly picture him as the bad guy, he is meant to form the portrait of the anti-hero of the story. You dont know what that person feels or what he's doing away from public view. They might spare some people they consider close a few beatings, give them some extra food, dunno, it's at their own liberty. The point is so that the system doesnt catch up to you.

Therefore, if you get caught, its fair game from that point on. Once drama starts building up in the force. Rls will report it to Overseers which willbtake drastic measures.

And yet another disclaimer; most of the time, dispatch will just be a an informant and a support. The main ground commanders will be the RLs and its up to them to give out punishments; the reason I chose this moderate approach, is to have a human element when it comes to punishments, instead of an AI working on algorithms that is still played by diff players, that have different ways of tackling problems but were limited by the whole 'robotic' schema.

 

[Deleted user]

Also, most people, and cps are limited to 1000 credits, the government controls ur intake.

 

[Sexy Frog]

A bit of a disclaimer here. While a cop (even tho he has a higher pay than anybody he will ever encounter, most of the times), most of this corruption will be dealt with icly, hence why the RLs are put in place, together the overseers. Sometimes cps will prolly let some people they like let go or whatever and that aint really a big issues, the main problem is borderline rogue activity that you need permission from the leads to achieve.

Your standard cp, while you mainly picture him as the bad guy, he is meant to form the portrait of the anti-hero of the story. You dont know what that person feels or what he's doing away from public view. They might spare some people they consider close a few beatings, give them some extra food, dunno, it's at their own liberty. The point is so that the system doesnt catch up to you.

Therefore, if you get caught, its fair game from that point on. Once drama starts building up in the force. Rls will report it to Overseers which willbtake drastic measures.

And yet another disclaimer; most of the time, dispatch will just be a an informant and a support. The main ground commanders will be the RLs and its up to them to give out punishments; the reason I chose this moderate approach, is to have a human element when it comes to punishments, instead of an AI working on algorithms that is still played by diff players, that have different ways of tackling problems but were limited by the whole 'robotic' schema.

Define borderline rogue. What is the tipping point that means a unit has to come to a lead in order to continue their chosen RP route? It seems like a fairly grey area by how you describe it. And further more, what exactly would even constitute a good reason to even be "rogue", anyway? Pre-application IC build up?

Honestly, I feel like a decent example of something that can be considered "rogue" activity but can really be mislabeled corruption is plain ol' embezzling Combine resources. This can take the form of many different types of resources and can be sold, given away or even kept for personal reasons but I feel like this is something that fits well in that grey area that really shouldn't need permission.

 

[AdamCF]

Define borderline rogue. What is the tipping point that means a unit has to come to a lead in order to continue their chosen RP route? It seems like a fairly grey area by how you describe it. And further more, what exactly would even constitute a good reason to even be "rogue", anyway? Pre-application IC build up?

Honestly, I feel like a decent example of something that can be considered "rogue" activity but can really be mislabeled corruption is plain ol' embezzling Combine resources. This can take the form of many different types of resources and can be sold, given away or even kept for personal reasons but I feel like this is something that fits well in that grey area that really shouldn't need permission.

its good to have it quite vague. There shouldn’t be a clear definition for what makes you rogue and what doesn’t. in my opinion, it adds a bit of fear, and makes it harder to abuse. It’s upto the CP leads to, within reason and on a case-by-case basis, determine what is and what isn’t ‘rogue’. There’ll always be a grey zone.

In terms of IC reasons, it’ll probably have to be limited to stuff that happens in the server

 

[Sexy Frog]

its good to have it quite vague. There shouldn’t be a clear definition for what makes you rogue and what doesn’t. in my opinion, it adds a bit of fear, and makes it harder to abuse. It’s upto the CP leads to, within reason and on a case-by-case basis, determine what is and what isn’t ‘rogue’. There’ll always be a grey zone.

In terms of IC reasons, it’ll probably have to be limited to stuff that happens in the server

I find it fairly unhelpful, actually. I may end up a unit doing something I think is corrupt and later get in trouble because I'm doing "rogue" activities without permission.

 

[NaughtyNicholas]

There is a difference between being corrupt and rogue. Being corrupt is taking advantage of a system for personal gain. Being rogue is actively going against the morals and ideals of the system you swore to protect, whether it be personal gain or other reasons. Being corrupt is extremely risky for CP's as it doesn't help them much. Their salary gives them a large amount of tokens which are not used for much, therefore there would be little reason to take bribes as the cons outweigh the pros. I assume letting people go who you like is fine, but I assume if you do it too much people will start to think OOC'ly about this and think about you differently OOC'ly. I think what we should be more worried about is the amount of nice-guy CP's that plagued TN which I hope does not happen on this server. I appreciate the more die-hard character sometimes and it's honestly a breath of fresh air to see an actually unique CP character rather than 1) Nice guy pushover. 2) Sadist who is a complete hardass.

 

[Deleted user]

I find it fairly unhelpful, actually. I may end up a unit doing something I think is corrupt

Get the whitelist first :v
Jokes aside tho'

I'm doing "rogue" activities without permission.

Rogue activity is defined by the idea of legit disrupting the balance between resistance and the union by you trying to tip around the scale. Supplying resistance groups with weaponry, killing other CPs for personal gain or for 'the greater good'.
Rogue isn't helping one person by giving them food, or giving them better treatment for example, because your cop has a thing for that person. It's when you try to fight the system quite openly.
Examples:

- giving out weaponry
- killing other cps
- actively working against the system (making it obvious that you're anti-union)
- going autonomous and just running away with the refugees / resistance

Basically what interferes with the ideals of the faction in a major level, is considered rogue.

I appreciate the more die-hard character sometimes and it's honestly a breath of fresh air to see an actually unique CP character rather than 1) Nice guy pushover. 2) Sadist who is a complete hardass.

Dunno why people just don't play as an anti-hero and try to find a middle ground between a hardass and an individual with a bit of a moral code.

 

[Madcombat]

Get the whitelist first :v
Jokes aside tho'

Rogue activity is defined by the idea of legit disrupting the balance between resistance and the union by you trying to tip around the scale. Supplying resistance groups with weaponry, killing other CPs for personal gain or for 'the greater good'.
Rogue isn't helping one person by giving them food, or giving them better treatment for example, because your cop has a thing for that person. It's when you try to fight the system quite openly.
Examples:

- giving out weaponry
- killing other cps
- actively working against the system (making it obvious that you're anti-union)
- going autonomous and just running away with the refugees / resistance

Basically what interferes with the ideals of the faction in a major level, is considered rogue.


Dunno why people just don't play as an anti-hero and try to find a middle ground between a hardass and an individual with a bit of a moral code.

Over the years, I think the concept of a rogue unit has gotten much bad rep by the generic means to how one is played. It's more considered more harmful to roleplay then good. Though I want to strictly state, this discussion isn't about going rogue. Corruption doesn't mean actively turning on the force and acting out openly against them. Corruption is acts like:
-Taking Bribes
-Giving small information out about other citizens that the over-branching union wouldn't approve of.
-Letting certain acts of crime exist between those who you have a invested interest in seeing success with.
-Showing more mercy then you're supposed to.
-Providing more food to those who need it.
-Letting certain individuals go.

It's all about adding a sense of flavour to the roleplay in my opinion. The rogue and a corrupt unit are two entirely different paths. Now, since we've touched on the Rogue question I might as well explore it a little more and add my opinion to the mix regarding rogues and simply why they get a bad rep. I'll contain this in a spoiler below as it is -not- part of the discussion.

---

Spoiler: On Rogue Units

Rogue units get a bad rep, but not a undeserved bad rep. Traditionally the idea of a rogue unit was supposed to be a character like Barny who is actively working against the Combine but from inside, using the resources around him to actively aid the resistance. This alone character would have deep ties to the resistance and act openly to leak information and plans. Meanwhile he'd also lure his companions away from the resistances activity, working to pen such sabotage on the best of the Combines units.

Sadly, rogue units in garrysmod are -entirely- in contrast to what the original concept was supposed to be. Let's start on a foundational level of why a rogue often even becomes a rogue. The reasons for doing such a action is usually never pure-hearted or moral in nature, it's usually a case of "I've been treated badly there for revenge!" or "Wouldn't it be cool to suddenly become a rebel?!" - these reasons for wanting to even start such a path are poor building blocks for future roleplay and often start and end in drama and as such; if the foundation is poor, the structure crumbles.

Rogue characters have a habit of following this recipe often aren't usually good characters and thus' it tarnishes the entire idea of what a rogue unit is supposed to be- so much so that many servers outright ban the allowance of letting people even do such a thing, it's just tarnished that badly.

So, what are the solutions to the rogue question? Well simply, OOC honesty would be a start. I think making a OOC agreement of understanding between the units intentions from the start and a unit of administrative power within' the combine is probably the healthiest way to swing what a rogue unit is supposed to be back into picture. Many people will naturally disagree with this viewpoint however.

---

Getting back onto Corruption- It seems to me like people aren't heavily adverse to the idea of corrupt units being a thing, what people don't want is such things being played in over the top manners.

Regardless, a lot of people end up playing as corrupt cops anyways. Not in the way of accepting bribes, but in the ways of fucking over people they don't like, letting people off with charges that they do like and so on.

If you're kicking and beating people you generally dislike anyway- you're not really any different from the average unit. Most units tend to have a authority complex, it's often the reason such players end up playing this role in the first place. Whilst I obviously can't pick and choose in what way a unit should be corrupt, I'd like to hope that those who might follow this path do it more so for moral reasons then not. As for reward or a lack of reward- I often like to see the roleplay in itself the reward and not usually obtaining something material for it. Though I understand why people want a more physical reward for such a action and maybe they're right. Maybe such things should be rewarded in some means if they are doing it well that is.

Opinions? (Remember, this isn't about rogues. Only about corruption.)

 

[Sexy Frog]

If you're kicking and beating people you generally dislike anyway- you're not really any different from the average unit. Most units tend to have a authority complex, it's often the reason such players end up playing this role in the first place. Whilst I obviously can't pick and choose in what way a unit should be corrupt, I'd like to hope that those who might follow this path do it more so for moral reasons then not. As for reward or a lack of reward- I often like to see the roleplay in itself the reward and not usually obtaining something material for it. Though I understand why people want a more physical reward for such a action and maybe they're right. Maybe such things should be rewarded in some means if they are doing it well that is.

Opinions? (Remember, this isn't about rogues. Only about corruption.)

While I agree that interesting RP is a reward in its own right, that outlook is usually predicated on people creating the character, as I mentioned before, already with the goal of corruption in mind. Therefore, their reward end up being exactly what they sought out to obtain. RP that one may find fulfilling. You would rarely find a person who would take that risk with a character they actually cared about or would even allow their character to take that route of development to end up in the role of corruption because the cons do outweigh the pros.

Personally, I would like to see some form of high risk, right return incentive for a unit to engage in corruption. This would likely need to take the form of units actually having a tangible use for tokens (something that, as far as I am aware, no server ever does have) because then this would make the possibility of accepting bribes in exchange for leniency more appropriate.

Maybe the introduction of some kind of drug that is generally only available to malignants that when taken gives some nice stat boosts for the TBC system, but has an OOC effect that nerfs your stats after not being taken for a while for future TBC interactions until taken again and basically must be taken regularly after the first time. This essentially gives units a personal incentive to possibly accept tokens as bribes, take the drug for TBC boosts if they choose, and potentially engage in corrupt actions in order to get their hands on more of the drug to stave off the debuffs and regain their buffs. Could even make it that after x amount of time, more and more of the drug is needed to get the same effect, kinda like a pseudo-heroin or something. This way units can actively participate in a shadow economy and it can also engage citizens in some interesting RP.

idk, I'm just spit balling but I think it sounds cool.

 

[Ron Goodfella]

could be cool.

remember that you are being watched by an autonomous facilitator that makes sure you are adhering to the regime.
dispatch marks off sterilized credits if you make failures, something as minorly erroneous like patrolling in the wrong area.

some things can slip under the radar while some might not. whos to stop you from incidentally beating someone too hard?

 

[Madcombat]

While I agree that interesting RP is a reward in its own right, that outlook is usually predicated on people creating the character, as I mentioned before, already with the goal of corruption in mind. Therefore, their reward end up being exactly what they sought out to obtain. RP that one may find fulfilling. You would rarely find a person who would take that risk with a character they actually cared about or would even allow their character to take that route of development to end up in the role of corruption because the cons do outweigh the pros.

Personally, I would like to see some form of high risk, right return incentive for a unit to engage in corruption. This would likely need to take the form of units actually having a tangible use for tokens (something that, as far as I am aware, no server ever does have) because then this would make the possibility of accepting bribes in exchange for leniency more appropriate.

Maybe the introduction of some kind of drug that is generally only available to malignants that when taken gives some nice stat boosts for the TBC system, but has an OOC effect that nerfs your stats after not being taken for a while for future TBC interactions until taken again and basically must be taken regularly after the first time. This essentially gives units a personal incentive to possibly accept tokens as bribes, take the drug for TBC boosts if they choose, and potentially engage in corrupt actions in order to get their hands on more of the drug to stave off the debuffs and regain their buffs. Could even make it that after x amount of time, more and more of the drug is needed to get the same effect, kinda like a pseudo-heroin or something. This way units can actively participate in a shadow economy and it can also engage citizens in some interesting RP.

idk, I'm just spit balling but I think it sounds cool.

Nothing wrong with spitballing, sometimes you might just find you spit out a good idea.

An idea like drug-dependency might be generally a really good idea to give units some angle to play a more open means to taking somthing like bribes. It makes sense too- I couldnt imagine the Union not pumping performance enhancing drugs into their men, at the same time I can imagine them using that dependency and trying to make use of credits as a means of reward for behavior only the loop hole is corruption is also rewarding and quite easily to manifest.

An interesting idea.

 

[Equinox]

Your standard cp, while you mainly picture him as the bad guy, he is meant to form the portrait of the anti-hero of the story.

Ehhhhhhhh. I don't know if this is just a metaphor of yours but I feel this doesn't do the Civil Protection justice to call them "anti-heros". Do you mean on a very individual level? And even then. Civil Protection should very much be the antagonist of HL2RP, both in concept and execution. They're the tangible manifestation of the Combine's rule on Earth through oppressive might and to make them "anti-heros" can lead to this weird zone where CP aren't really bad people, which in a grander scheme can ruin the image that the Civil Protection give off.

As for this thread itself, I'm all for IC corruption, so long as it is ICly dealt with. This is one of those instances where you can't outright force a CP unit to remain antagonistic even when showing mercy or doing corrupt stuff (such as the way of the brute or thug) but you can definitely encourage CP to remain "evil" because dropping your professional nature and brutish front could be considered a minor but definite sign that something could be happening.

 

[Gir]

vvvvvvvvvvvvwwhoc ares
Who cares??

^ ^
----------

write

 

[Gazzpacho]

Basically bribe the CPs and they let you live