So, can someone clarify how corruption works exactly for me?
Last game I conquered all territores and at the end I had 1000 gold gross income and -400 gold lost to corruption.

Those last few territories increase corruption by over 50 gold each (much much more then the income they provided naturally, and enough to make me go bankrupt)

The bigger the world gets the more this becomes an issue.

How corruption works

Corruption is a multiplier for your expenses.

Step 1. Game finds %Corruption, which equal to (LordCorruption +sum(Province corruption))/10+2*difficulty - 18, where
Province corruption = (sites+race)*(1+taxmen/100)
race varies from 0 (centaurs) to 20 (goblins)
sites - like thief guild, 10
taxmen, up to -100
LordCorruption - based on events, can be negative.
difficulty - 0...6;

Step 2. game chooses minimal between %Corruption and 60+6*difficulty
Step 3. picked multiplier is decreased by your castle buildings

Thank you Gremlion
This helps. It seems that the issue is that each territory adds to the corruption percentage which then affects the entire empire.

Also, allowing a theif guild to exist instead of burning it down is a huge trap, their tiny income is nothing compared to the massive losses you take due to the percent corruption increase.

Also its better to not even bother conquering goblins and dwarves Wait a tic, you mean if I make an evil choice and save 50 gold I can end up with an empire wide corruption increase that costs me more than that per turn? That must absolutely ruin "evil" masters

For example, if you found bribetaker, you have some choices:
take bribe, free him - you increase own corruption.
kill him -karma, strong decrease in corruption
show trial -gold, +karma, decrease in corruption
free him - don't remember now, probably +karma, +corruption.

The first option actually reads "fine him" which implies +karma (you are not being cruel) and -corruption (there is a penalty) since fines are a normal method for dealing with things in society. Especially because this returns the wealth he has stolen back to the people (for some reason executing him does not recover that money, odd)

Had it said "demand a cut" or "ask him to bribe you" it would be more clear that it actually gives +corruption. This sounds like a translation issue that is muddling up the morality choices

This also goes back to what I said about the trap options. Fining him is a trap because regardless of your moral status you lose money on it. The only viable choices for an evil heartless person is to kill him or do a show trial. The other 2 options are traps.

Little different logic.
Fine implies that you take stolen money and let him go unharmed to his old post.

Gotta agree with Taltamir. I've gotten this choice many times and it's NOT clear that fining him is bad. It's not unusual even for modern governments to fine a person doing financial crimes for the amount embezzled + some and it certainly reads like a proper punishment. If it's considered a bribe it should use the word bribe.

Actually a fine means that in addition to giving back what he stole he gets punished by having to pay extra money, that punishment is meant to be a deterrent for minor crimes.
It does not imply that he is allowed to continue embezzling.

"Demand a cut" or ask for a bribe or several others does signify that he will continue embezzling and you allow it thanks to getting your share

The show trial also makes little sense because he admitted to the crime, so all you are doing is a kangaroo court with an unknown result (is the trial going to result in him getting a fine? execution? torture? imprisonment?... we already know he is guilty the question is only his punishment). And you are burning through a lot of taxpayer money to make it showy

Yeah because fines work SO well in reducing corruption in our own society! LOL

The show trial is presumably not to punish him in particular but to make a huge public spectacle of a corrupt official being punished, to make a statement that it won't be accepted - while other options would be less.. spectacular - especially an ordinary fine.

jamotide: True, but the alternatives are show trial (burns taxpayer money) and death penalty.
There is no lighter punishment nor clear indication of what the law as written is (which is another important consideration, surely there was a law against it and a punishment listed before it happened)

@Skvader: Yea, I figured as such, so its clearly good for lowering corruption. But where does it fall on the karma meter? Especially because he CONFESSED before you were even given the choice... whats the point of a big spectacle trial if the guy confessed to be guilty before it even started?

Also, surprisingly a huge big spectacle trial causes a smaller reduction in corruption then quietly executing him. (which implies that the final result of the trial is NOT an execution)

And we are never told what the results of the trial are... I think choosing trial should lower corruption and then unlock a second window where an actual punishment is chosen (there are many many events where a choice unlocks further choices)

Show trials are immoral, but better than no trials. Releasing him without punishment is also immoral. There seem to be no good choices; need there be?

There is a logic in this, in the end. If you fine him and leave him there, the effect is that you let yourself be bribed by him. In real world at least in such a case they guy should lose its office. Then in what is a show trial immoral?

1. You are wasting a significant amount of taxpayer money. (taxes are taken by force with thread of violence, by wasting them frifolously you turn a necessary evil of taxation into an unnecessary evil of robbery)
2. He plead guilty to the crime, so you are just making a spectacle of drawing out the farce of kangaroo court rather then mete out punishment already.

Also, the "fine him" option does not in any way shape or form indicate that he is allowed to REMAIN IN OFFICE. This is not even implied... its completely vague on whether or not he will remain in office.

Heck, the show trial doesn't even imply what his verdict or punishment is... you can have a show trial and find him innoocent (Although I doubt it), or you could find him guilty and sentenced to fine and retain office, sentenced to death, sentenced to hard labor, sentenced to whatever. We don't know.

Fines are explicitly defined as a punishment; when you pay off a speeding ticket, you're being punished for a crime, not bribing the police. The two concepts are completely different, and if the game intended that to be a bribe then it needs to be made clear.

Also a show trial implies that you're just paying lip service to the problem instead of actually addressing it.