I can picture in my mind NPCs that just don't care for mutations 'cos they live alone in a dungeon, surrounded by various monstrosities. If a first level wizard casts so much as to get tentacles, lizard eyes, albino skin and a lion mane... I think that any other person in the realm will hunt him down as a minion of evil (yes, in a fantasy medieval cliché i expect people to associate ugly with evil!) and eventually put an end to his corrupted existence.
Yeah, sure - and then what?
Suppose I get four players (which is an optimistic projection, for me). At least one makes a wizard.
If the wizard PC is repulsive to civilized human NPCs, so what? Either the rest of the party is there to cover for him, or else some of the players decide DCC isn't fun and stop showing up.
If the wizard player stops showing up, DCC continues without corruption.
If the wizard player stays while other players quit, the party becomes increasingly dominated by the needs of the Corrupted wizard.
Even if I have just one player, he is supposed to have one high-level character and at least one henchman. This means that his high-level Corrupted wizard
can have a cleric or thief or fighter henchman who goes into town and buys food, quill pens, ink, and parchment.
I hate to keep banging the drum on this issue, but I'll repeat it again: we, as judges, can't assume that our players will stick with our favorite games. Just because WE think and swords-and-sorcery is better than sliced bread doesn't mean that our players will agree.
I think Corruption as it stands is not going to work - i.e. it's not going to provide most play groups with the experience that the designer intended. The designer intended players to feel tension about whether they use magic or not, and I don't think most players of wizard characters are going to feel any tension.