ok, I will offer my opinions on this:

A)  Darta is not actively engaged in the collection of the taxes that fund his living.  He's actually a couple steps removed.  I award no corruption for something that is beyond his conrtol to change.  In fact, he may end up doing a lot of good for those people. 

B) Ignoring her is not necessarily a corruption offense choosing not to act with no information may be the best option.  He SHOULD at least stop to investigate and make sure the Guard have just cause.  (and if he were the fictional hero he is based on, he should be shooting that rope and leading the guard on a merry chase just on principle of screwing with the Cardinal's men) He is probably getting some reputation changes regardless of his action.

C) No corruption for learning after the fact that what he did was wrong but he should be making an effort without request to rectify that problem.  He is getting some serious reputation changes for this.

D) No corruption for what happens as long as he is actively trying to catch her.  If he ignores the assignment for a vacation, however, he probably deserves a point for the guilt.  (and more reputation damage for goofing off instead of helping)

E) Totally dependent on the GM's view of this encounter.  If the "witch" is genuinely a good and helpful character, letting her go grants no corruption.  If she just fast talked our hero into letting her go, he gets the corruption.  and "G" is his redemption arc. 

F) No corruption for actions taken by another.  Otherwise, my whole party is lost because one player is a sociopath and they are guilty by association.  This is nothing but a plot hook for the player to chase down the villain (again)

G) The hero should be turning her in for justice as he was ordered but as he was given a "dead or alive" order earlier and his previous encounters have shown how dangerous she is, he is going to get a pass on corruption since the GM is aiming him towards a "Kill her" resolution.  (and technically, she is a monster)  If the GM is not aiming the player at this "no way out but death" resolution, a corruption point could be viable here. 

Sweet... I'll give my opinion but I think I'm going to steal this for a game :P (Too damn good xd)

a) If D'Arta decides to keep his job but decides to start trying to solve problems here and there for the citizens behind the King's back and explains that his job may allow him more opportunities to set things right, like a super-hero concept more or less, then I think he shouldn't receive a Corruption point. If he does nothing and agree to fulfill his duties without questioning anything then yes, a Corrution point is in order I believe.

b) The hate the hero and people from villages are normally superstitious so... If D'Arta does nothing... and with this I mean not even trying to find information then yes, a Corruption point earned but if D'Arta tries to find out what happened even if he fails to stop them, I don't think a Corruption point would be fair.

c) Corruption based on decisions he made in the past... I disagree with. He didn't know but he may feel guilty or even if he does not, he already faced the situation back then, more tests on the very same matter would be unfair.

d) Same as C. He chose something, no one must be punished for all the consequences or we all would be drunks trying to drown our lives in every alley.

e) Tricky... Allowing her to kill someone, even if that child is ill, is bad but if she does so to save another... I'm not sure, it would depend on how the player takes this... If he does not show any emotion or concern and it didn't take much to convince him then yeah, Corruption point given but otherwise, I don't think I'll give him one.

f) Lying to save his own neck is something everyone will do sooner or later so nope, no Corruption point because it's something that happened in the past. He already faced that situation.

g) Betrayal of his trust? Being lied is no excuse D'Arta can use to justify what he does. He does not show any remorse and he does not even try to care for the girl so yes, Corruption point.

Interesting puzzles, Cthulhu Netobvious. What solution did you use in your game? Did adapted he Corruption System, designed a different one or simply cast out the morality issue in your game? Although it seems a bit 'puritan', this system helps the players to follow the 'spirit' intended for the game by its creators.

More often than not, my game group like to play with morality-gray characters, anti-heroes at best. For now, I´m giving them liberty of action (one of them already gave a montaigne noble prisoner a hard time), but I´m inclined to demand some kind of 'price' in case they decide to go in "full villain mode".

a. Depends on the player and how they decide to roll with it. I would actually allow them to write in a new story, even if all their slots are filled, to work towards changing the system from the inside if they decide to go that route. They would be over the maximum they could simulataneously have, so when they fufill one of the others, they would not be able to replace it because that slot is filled. If they decide to keep working, but are not working towards changing the system, then I might give them a corruption. If the quit, then nothing.

b. Ignoring the scene entirely would not earn him corruption. He is coming into a scene where he has no information and likely does not have enough time to get the information needed to mak an informed decision. No matter what he does he will likely not get corruption from the scene.

c. This is a tricky one, but it all comes down to how he reacts. I will not give corruption for anything in scene because he might be keeping a brave face on, but I will keep the camera on him to show how he reacts in a more private setting. If no remorse is shown, then corruption to reflect the cold hardness that is seeping into his heart. If remorse is shown that he helped a child murderer get away, then no corruption. If he tries to justify it to himself to conteract the remorse, then corruption for lying to oneself to convince themself they are right.

d. The lives of the additional children will not give corruption to him. His action or inaction did not cause their deaths. It was the action of the witch that caused their deaths. His giving her of a second chance on life could have easily made her reevaluate her life choices. Sure, he made a mistake in letting her go and he may feel their blood is on their hands, but even if he does not feel like their blood is on his hands, no corruption. As for apprehending her clearing corruption, maybe. If he felt no regret or justified to himself releasing her was the right thing to do at the time, I may let him clear a corruption for making the situation right. If he did not get corruption from those things (as shown by how little oportunities popped up) then he will probably not get to clear any.

e. Again, this depends. If he makes her promise to never harm a child again, even to help her daughter, then I would probabl not. If he did not get a promise from her and simply helped her pretend to be dead, he would get corruption. The reason for this is Sidhe and other Fey creatures that exist. It is a known thing that there are things that will trist your words and the best way to deal with them is to get a promise out of them, and not trust their implicit nature.

f. No. Lying is not a corrupting thing, especially to save oneself.

g. No corruption from killing the villain. How he handles the child is what determines the corruption he gets in the scene.

Yeah, I wouldn't assign Corruption for pretty much any of those.

a) D'arta has no clue what's going on here, and as an agent of the King, he could use his authority to briefly intervene and see what's happening.  But the player could also rightely voice concern that the GM has thrown him into an unwinnable situation.

b) Solid nope.  Saving a live, even that of a Villain (suspected or otherwise) is a heroic act.

c) No Corruption here as he's not actively performing those acts, and that moment neither is the witch.  And there are stories where the Hero saves the Villain, and is able to get that Villain to reconsider and possibly repent for their possible misdeeds.

d) Again, no Corruption.

e) Again, no Corruption.  Granted, he'd be foolish if he didn't try to extract a promise from the witch to not keep targeting children, but if he fails to get such a promise he's not gaining Corruption from as it's not a deliberate act of evil the way murder or torture is.

f) Yet again, no Corruption.  Yes, he lied to his leige, and there will undoubtedly be consequences, but Corruption isn't one of them.

g) For killing this Villain that has refused to repent or to come quietly, no Corruption.  What happens to the little girl might be another matter, depending how D'arta opts to proceed; if he kills the little girl on the spot, that is worth Corruption, but if he takes her in and ensures that whatever time she has left is spent living well and as comfortably as possible.

To be frank, a lot of these smell like the sort of things a bad GM would use to set up a Paladin Screw Job, i.e. situations were the player of a Lawful Good Paladin is forced into making a choice that costs them their special abilities.

Personally, as far as whether a course of action would warrant Corruption or not, I'd suggest having the following checklitst on hand (courtesy of Gary M. Sarli for WotC's Star Wars Saga Edition RPG):

- Did the action harm a sentient, living being?
- Did the action harm a person that was at your mercy (unable to meaningfully defend himself)?
- Did the action cause serious harm to a person (physically, mentally, emotionally)?
- Was the action unnecessary to protect yourself or another person from an immediate, obvious threat?
- Was the action deliberate and the result intended?

If all five of these ding as "Yes," then that's an action which is definitely worth Corruption, and in Saga Edition was deemed "blatantly evil," to the point where Emperor Palpatine would be cackling with sadistic glree and applauding your character's actions.

If exactly one question can be answered "No" without employing moral gymnastics to justify it, then the action may still be worth Corruption.  If the it's the 5th Question ("Was ths action deliberate and result intended?") that's answered "No," then I probably wouldn't assign Corruption, but if the answer to that one is "Yes" then the action itself is probably stil worth Corruption, but that's just my point of view.

If exactly two questions can be answered "No" (again, no moral gymnastics to justify it), then it's a "dubiously evil" act and probably not worth Corruption by itself.

If three or more can be answered "No" sans moral gymnastics, then it's not worth Corruption.

And when I say "moral gymnastics," I'm referring to attempts to justify a Yes or No answer, generally by way of things such as "extenuating circumstances" that really don't apply.  To keep with the Star Wars theme, a rule of thumb I used when GM'ing for a group that included one or more Force users was "the more and harder the player tries to justify why their action didn't warrant a dark side point, the more they prove the action did warrant a dark side point."  A similar rule of thumb could probaby be employed for assigning Corruption as well, provided the GM is able to remain fair and not deliberately set an unknowning player up for a fall (aka Paladin Screw Job).  If the player wants to run a character that occasionally crosses the line and has to struggle to not take the "quick and easy path," that's one thing, and player and GM can work together to create scenes where the character might do something that warrants Corruption; an example of such a thing would be from Book 1 of Stephen King's The Dark Tower series, where the protaganist Roland allows a young boy to whom he's become quite close to die so that he can pursue his objective, and that's not even the final act of the book.

@Cthuhlu I’d argue what you’ve written up there is not a 7th sea styled swashbuckling story, but a noir story. You’ve made the “best” option either impossible or asked him to choose between the deaths of two people. (I’m also deeply suspicious of anyone with a 7th sea level of medicine being able to identify terminal illness, but that’s beside the point. I suppose she has magic healing powers, but she’s also a trickster.)

To answer your question- no corruption, for any of those. None of them are explicitly Evil, they’re just morally grey decisions where all the options are morally grey.

However, your D'Artagnan does not act heroically in this sequence. He acts like a character in a noir story-making what he thinks is the best choice out if a series of bad options, being powerless to really change things. Heroism, as 7th sea has it, isn’t about making the least worst choice. It’s about doing all you can to achieve your aims.  So how could D'Artagnan act heroically in these situations? Isn’t that a better question? Isn’t that more worthy of discussion than playing avoid the Corruption point? After all, as you said, 7th sea is about having fun. , Here are some examples of how D'Artagnan could act heroically in the situation you described, and be awarded with hero points:

a) on hearing that his wages come from those who cannot afford them, he either refuses his wages or donates all of it to the poor, choosing to live on just bread and water

b) Of course he charges in. and he get;s a hero point for it.  

c) I can’t actually think of anything here: being fooled by a trickster is a great part of many a story, swashbuckling tales included

d) I feel, this is you generating a fairly straw man- others suffering for the hero’s mistake is specifically recommended by JW. Obviously D'Artagnan feels personally responsible for those deaths.  

e) Can only survive with her mother’s magic? There are plenty of options here: D'Artagnan could ride hard to Charouse and have the child inspected by the Emperor's personal physician. Or he could ride deep into the forest, braving many dangers, to find a lake, the waters of which are said can cure any disease and break any curse. There are plenty of options here.

f) If D'Artagnan was to swear that no more children were to die, that would earn him a hero point.

g) I refer back to (e)- there should be a way to save the child, even if the witch has to be killed. It’s going to be incredibly dangerous, but there’s a way. (a life for a life, well, what about the witch's life?)

At this point I'm starting to seriously doubt that you've even read the actual rules on Corruption that are in the book, and are instead running off some half-baked imaginary concept of what the Corruption rules as outlined in the book actually are.  For an instance of actual play with the actual Corruption rules in place, we've got a Montaigne rapscallion as part of the group, and he has done some very shady things in his pursuit of personal power and is very self-centered in his overall ambitions, but he's not gained a single point of Corruption due to not stooping to things like murder or physical torture.  And yet, under your apparant interpreation of how Corruption operates, this character should have become a Villain by the end of the second session.

But then, I consciously make the choice not to associate with or engage the type of player mentality that falls within the "murderhobo" mindset.  7th Sea as a system outright says that it aspires to have the players create characters that are Heroes with a deliberate capital H.  Re-reading your "thought experiment" I think Peasant hit the nail on the head and that you have zero interest in playing a Heroic character and instead would prefer to wallow in the muck.  Or worse yet, you're the sort of GM that would view a Paladin Screw-Job (delibrately putting a PC Paladin into a situation where they have no choice but to lose their Paladin status) not as something to avoid, but as something to aspire to under the false pretense of "interesting storytelling" when really it's just the GM being a petty jerk.

To paraphrase John Wick:  "Killing your character is far from the worst thing I can do your character."

There's plenty of ways to "remove" a character from the game without even touching upon Corruption.  As a GM, I can have your character arrested and locked away simply for annoying the local ruling authority figure, especially in countries like Eisen, Montaigne, and Vodacce.  Just because the Count of Monte Cristo was eventually able to escape doesn't mean your character can expect the same consideration.

But I can see that you're so heavily invested in your narrow point of view that it's really not worth the time to try and have a rationale discussion with you about the subject, as evidenced by your false and utterly preposterous presumption that any group that the Corruption rules force all PCs to be "Moralist Puritans" when an intelligent reading of the rules shows that is far from the case, and that Heroes are NOT forced to be "goody two-shoe paladins" by said rules, with my even citing a clear example of a PC that was NOT a "Moralist Puritan" by any stretch and yet never got a single point of Corruption.  You constantly refuse to even entertain the notion that perhaps you're reading more into the mechanics than what's actually there, as well as continuing your entirely petty crusade against Mister Curry, who has been considerate enough to answer fan questions when he's under no obligation to do so, and even being considerate enough to provide some free sneak peaks about upcoming material, all becuase of an imagined slight to this forum.  And given your unwarranted petty attitude and snidely juvenile attacks, you certainly won't be convincing him or probably any other of the staff at John Wick Productions to see this forum as anything worth consideration.