Yeah, but that's the crux of the issue, there's no other scene presented. Are you justifying that a pure PC should have non-consensual (in the terms of no other options presented) intercourse with an NPC for something that is vital for the quest that there is assumedly no other option to obtain (without Cait in the party or being an Orc PC to bypass it completely)?
And the very act of not wanting to give up one's dignity in that case is deserving of implying that the PCs moral outlook has been compromised and they're more corrupt than the alternative - even when considering not knowing exactly how corrupt any of the NPCs actually are in the Kervus camp (which as seen the the previous game, if they're more corrupt than the PC they'd generally increase the PCs corruption anyway post-sex / post-rape).
It sounds like you're justifying the lack of context surrounding the inclusion of an increase in corruption in this case (and the Quin case), without taking into consideration of any of the other worse things the PC can do, such as letting Benny Hill run amok whilst the slaves are still trapped, yet this instance of Pavo's wishes is where the moral high ground is supposedly more prominent.
If it's questionable, like with the Quin case, surely you could understand why there would be some reason to question it - not outright just accept it like it's 100% justifiable and makes sense.
If the PC was presented with options of negotiating with him (aside from being an Orc PC which just bypasses this whole thing in the first place), and not resorting to violence, I'd understand this argument moreso (the PC gaining corruption for beating him up). But as it stands it just seems like it's expected for the PC to forgo their own wishes / preferences / dignity (or at least for the player to look at every scenario from a metagaming perspective), just to try and maintain some fragile concept of morality that has been shown to be at least somewhat inconsistent time and time again (something you yourself admitted previously with the Quin scenario...).
You asked me to justify the corruption gain for Pavo, not what my personal thoughts were. My personal look is just the same as with Quint, that I don't think this choice should actually increase corruption, unless there were more options given. But my writing was done specifically to just list justifications for it, because that's what I thought you asked for.
No, she rapes your PC even if you lose from the first encounter with her, not as a result of her being raped by the PC. There is no "flare up" she is the exact same NPC in both scenes, furthering the inconsistency (unless you acknowledge the corruption, which you don't seem to be doing) - she's apparently clear of mind if she loses, but fine to rape anything if they lose to her.
Also, I wasn't questioning why the PC gets corruption for the victory scenes, I was using that as a comparison to say that that's bad right, after the PC wins her corruption "recedes" (as seen by her dialogue), sure, but if the PC loses to her she goes out of her way to do bad corruptible stuff to the PC, which she even mentions in the dialogue.
You're defending that as though that obvious corruption Kasyrra imparted on her is not in any way going to be imparted to the PC (when Eryka rapes the PC from their very first encounter with her, unprovoked), when the Centaurs, Imps and other corrupted NPCs in the game all do as well to the PC when they win - if that's not in any way comparative to you - then rather don't reply to this post though, lest this continue ad infinitum.
Unless you're overtly trying to justify Eryka raping the the PC from the very first encounter by saying that Eryka is clearly not corrupted in the slightest (despite it being mentioned to take over her autonomy in the PC Defeat scene), then I don't know what else you were trying to imply.
So I just realized I didn't actually finish what I was saying on that. I just kind of moved on I guess? My attention is weird. I sometimes get hyper-fixated on something for a few minutes and then I get completely distracted by something else. In the thing your responding to, in the segments responding to you, I wrote the fourth bit first, then the third, then the first, then the second.
The "flare up" statement was honestly just supposed to be about why the pc victory sex is corrupting, since she starts out crazy, gets calm, and then through the pc's actions things get worse again. The primary corrupter in the scene is that the pc is being cruel, with any corruption in Eryka being secondary. As for how corruption isn't imparted in the loss scene, even in a lessened amount, well, I'm not sure. How is it that sex with the Alraune, or bimbo'd hornets, or alraune effigies don't result in corruption gain, despite their corruption? I don't know. What I'd written so far in the Eryka thing was mostly just about how the pc having victory sex would inherently be much more corrupting than the loss sex scene, since the pc themself was engaging in corruptive actions aside from just fucking someone who's corrupted, but in attempting to justify why Eryka's loss sex scenes don't impart
any corruption, all I could think of is that she isn't leaking corruption or something like that. Like, it could very well be that corruption on the part of those who inflict it on the pc specifically intend for it. Centaur packs fuck with the intent to break the pc until they can keep them as a docile slave. Imps are kind of just inherently evil and seem to seek specifically to spread corruption. The Alraune, effigies, and hornets don't seek to corrupt others, just to spread their seed/eggs. Farrah is a full on demon, and I think the only sex the pc can have with her is a buttjob, but that doesn't spread corruption because she has no desire to corrupt, but the Painted Demon enemy/ies love to fuck, and they want to get others to fuck. They want to spread corruption because, I guess, they think it'll make others horny like they are, particularly given that they comment on how tainted pcs are "like them" and offer to skip the combat and go straight to sex. So going back to Eryka, she doesn't want to spread corruption. The corruption in her makes her more sexual and domineering, but she doesn't really want to spread corruption.
That doesn't change anything really though, it's was still something you seemingly disingenuously used as a comparison to aid in you dismissing a stance as though it's the exact same premise, which it wasn't. Even if the narrative has changed now, that was definitely how it seemed to be implied previously. And interestingly enough, I've noted that out of every response so far you've elected to continue to cherry-pick certain statements out of my responses (as well as Linulanielly's posts yesterday) instead of responding to them as a whole, like I've done with your relevant responses to me.
But worry not, I've deduced that you'll come up with whatever reasoning you want to justify that, and that's fine, I'm doing the same with my stances - which is why I suggest we not further this. I posted a gripe I had, you responded, I responded to your response, and over and over again we go. This is not pleasant for anyone else to look at, you must realize that. So why is it necessary to continue to critique others upon their stances / opinions in a literal thread relevant for them stating their opinions / stances instead of just ignoring it if you disagree with it? Seems a whole lot more inconvenient for everyone involved to be honest.
Almost as though there has to be a specific verdict that one stance is correct and one is wrong for this thread / forum to exist - when opinions aren't really as cut and dry as right and wrong.
Also, (as mentioned prior) I do take issue with your seemingly consistent attempts to either disingenuously misinterpret / misrepresent my stances / opinions.
As I'll reiterate once again, I didn't think it'd be such an issue for me to post a gripe in the literal titled "Your gripes with CoC II" thread, as though that was justification alone for stances / opinions to be examined and critiqued.
At that point it's more of a "Your gripes with CoC II, but only if it meets a certain criteria and people don't disagree with it, otherwise your stance will be critiqued and the discussion about why you're wrong will drag on and on, and you should feel bad for posting it in the first place" thread.
The point of the Herod comparison wasn't "you're like Herod." In case you didn't notice, the paragraph in the post you're complaining about here ended by saying that the gripes thread is a "marketplace of ideas." Herod was just the first notable example I could think of of a person posting long-form criticism which had several wrong points, which led to a lengthy discussion on the topic.
I don't think that there is just one "right" opinion, but I do think that some opinions may be better than others. I hold the belief that opinions usually start out weak, and they get stronger as they're challenged, cutting out the bad parts and adding on new, better additions. As I said in regards to the Herod thing, this thread has a ton of conversation on many gripes that have been made in the past. There is no issue with posting a gripe in this thread, but the environment of this thread is such that you should prepare for a discussion on things. Even if most of the time, the discussion is nowhere near this lengthy or heated.
On the cherry-picking front, that's kind of just to pinpoint specific things I want to respond to. If I were responding to literally everything you said, these posts would be even larger, and they'd either be bloated with points I don't care about or just not address half of what gets put in the quotes. I'm not trying to be disingenuous, and hell it feels like you're being disingenuous here as you repeatedly make assertions about stances and beliefs and behaviors you think I have. I doubt that's your intent but it sure as hell feels like it. So yeah, we should stop here. Because it feels like you think I'm arguing in bad faith, and your presentation of that makes me feel like you're arguing in bad faith. I don't think you actually are coming at this from a bad faith position, but I do think you're exasperated, and at this point, so am I.
