Is it evil to draw in the doubled PPE from a slain demon?

[Killer Cyborg]

"they learned to merge the mind with the body; to direct and focus the inner self, 'Chi'"

Chi is described as the inner self not natural energy binding the universe together.

N&S 16
"All living things have Chi. Essentially, it's the energy of life that flows through the earth and through every living thing."

BtS 49
"Yet PPE is not really an enigma. It is a natural, physical and mental essence that links and binds all life."

N&S 46
"Geomancy: This allows the character to evaluate the amount of Chi in any area. Some places will have a large amount of positive Chi, others will have a substantial negative Chi."

BtS 40
"Geomancy and ley lines are the belief that certain places on Earth are polarized with an unknown energy or forces that can heal, cause paranormal phenomena, attract supernatural forces, open dimensional gateways, are magical or places of evil."

The original context was BtS. And BtS does not say PPE is Chi.

That's a desperate reach on your part.

[Killer Cyborg]

Well, the book never says it IS ceremonial magic; that's just something you've made up on your own.

It's clear from the context.

No, it's clearly NOT.
You need to work on your basic English skills.

Actually, it is clear. This sure is fun.

Ceremonial magic appears all over blood sacrifice description,

Yes, those words appear.
That does not mean that blood sacrifice is ceremonial magic, and if you READ the passages, it's clear that blood sacrifice is only the means to the end o the ritual being performed.
It's not the ritual itself.

Rather than suggest I improve something about myself, you tell me how "it's clearly NOT".

Already have done.
If you refuse to get it by now, you're beyond my help.
I don't have time to teach you the English language and how it works.

[Killer Cyborg]

If you kill with the intention of tapping into the PPE then you have done something evil. What does not matter is if you actually tap into the PPE.

You keep making that claim, but you haven't supported it.

You keep making that claim, too.

One more time.

Blood sacrifice is evil.
Blood sacrifice is killing with the intention of tapping into the PPE.
Killing with the intention of tapping into PPE is evil.

Supported.

That's not actually supporting anything.
It's just a series of unsupported claims.

Blood sacrifice is evil.
-Supported claim.
Participating in blood sacrifice is a hideous act of evil.
Participating in blood sacrifice immediately makes a character go to evil alignment.

No, that's still just a claim.
Supporting the claim would be citing relevant passages from the books.
But don't worry about this one; yes, blood sacrifice is evil.

Blood sacrifice is killing with the intention of tapping into the PPE.
-Supported claim.
Blood sacrifice is killing a sacrificial victim to enable an evil mage to draw the doubled PPE.

No, that's not a supported claim.
It's just a claim.
Unless you can find a passage in the books that actually says that.

Killing with the intention of tapping into PPE is evil.
-Reasonable conclusion.
If blood sacrifice is killing with the intention of tapping into doubled PPE and blood sacrifice is evil, then killing with the intention of tapping into doubled PPE is evil.

Reasonable conclusion only if your second claim is accurate, and it's not.

And, again, it doesn't explain how killing animals with the intent to tap into PPE is supposed to be evil, but killing animals is not.

[Killer Cyborg]

If drawing the PPE is not evil, then why is intention to draw the PPE evil?

Because the method enabling the mage to draw upon PPE is evil. The books says the method is evil. The book does not say that drawing PPE is evil.

That doesn't answer the question.

I don't know why. Apparently motive is enough. Otherwise the book would say that drawing PPE is evil, rather than saying that killing in order to enable the drawing of PPE is evil.

If motivation was enough, then the books would say "attempting to kill somebody for their PPE is evil".
But the books don't say that.
They just say that killing people (or animals) for the PPE is evil.

[Killer Cyborg]

Well, given the way Palladium (and D&D, since that's where Palladium took the idea from) wrote out their alignments and described it....sport hunters ARE evil. Maybe not diabolic world domination kind...but still killing for fun is evil and the books never make a distinction between killing a non-sentient and a sentient being.

Interesting.
On the other hand, if alignments apply to animals then you can't even kill for food without being evil.

Regarding my initial point, I don't feel it's evil in the slightest to hunt or kill animals (as per the rules) if you need what you can take from them. Now hunting for food without needing it for any reason (i.e.: "I'm hungry, think I'll go shoot some squirrels instead of having soup from the fridge" as opposed to hunting to make clothing for sale or trade to continue one's livelihood) is an unnecessary action and therefore technically falls into the evil category. Now of course no rational person here thinks that shooting a bird or squirrel is a one-way ticket to the 7th level of Hell, I'm just pointing out the rules. Anyway, back to the matter at hand.

This goes back to the notion of killing expressly for the PPE when PPE is not a necessity for survival. PPE itself can be stored in TW batteries and sold, so it can be used as a means of survival. However, PPE can still be attained without killing. The draining of the PPE as an action isn't inherently evil. You could have an old dog that needed to be put down. As long as the PPE harvest was not the entire intention of killing the animal, the act is not evil. It's merely taking advantage of a situation that has presented itself.

The intentional act of killing something or someone for the express purpose of harvesting the extra PPE that comes about ONLY at the point of death is an evil act because you can get PPE just fine already, now you're just ending a life for greed and that itself is an evil act.

1. Your coherency is a breath of fresh air in this thread.
2. Still, I don't buy your premise within the context of the game, that killing animals unnecessarily is evil.

[lather]

"they learned to merge the mind with the body; to direct and focus the inner self, 'Chi'"

Chi is described as the inner self not natural energy binding the universe together.

N&S 16
"All living things have Chi. Essentially, it's the energy of life that flows through the earth and through every living thing."

BtS 49
"Yet PPE is not really an enigma. It is a natural, physical and mental essence that links and binds all life."

N&S 46
"Geomancy: This allows the character to evaluate the amount of Chi in any area. Some places will have a large amount of positive Chi, others will have a substantial negative Chi."

BtS 40
"Geomancy and ley lines are the belief that certain places on Earth are polarized with an unknown energy or forces that can heal, cause paranormal phenomena, attract supernatural forces, open dimensional gateways, are magical or places of evil."

The original context was BtS. And BtS does not say PPE is Chi.

That's a desperate reach on your part.

The original context of my question was BtS - if it wasn't, what was the original context?

I asked where BtS mentions Chi. I see nowhere in BtS that says "PPE is Chi".

[Killer Cyborg]

The original context was BtS. And BtS does not say PPE is Chi.

That's a desperate reach on your part.

The original context of my question was BtS - if it wasn't, what was the original context?

I asked where BtS mentions Chi. I see nowhere in BtS that says "PPE is Chi".

-The context of the conversation is the megaverse in general.
-Chi is chi everywhere.
It might be represented differently in different games, but it's all the same energy.
-BtS doesn't spell it out, but it's clear from the passage I quoted.
They're talking about PPE, and go into a description of Chi.
Why? Because it's the same force.
They didn't switch subjects mid-passage.

[lather]

The original context was BtS. And BtS does not say PPE is Chi.

That's a desperate reach on your part.

The original context of my question was BtS - if it wasn't, what was the original context?

I asked where BtS mentions Chi. I see nowhere in BtS that says "PPE is Chi".

-The context of the conversation is the megaverse in general.
-Chi is chi everywhere.
It might be represented differently in different games, but it's all the same energy.
-BtS doesn't spell it out, but it's clear from the passage I quoted.
They're talking about PPE, and go into a description of Chi.
Why? Because it's the same force.
They didn't switch subjects mid-passage.

- The context of my question was BtS. The context of my conversation as I have clearly stated is BtS and blood sacrifice. Going outside that context, hunting and pecking, and stitching different games together does not accomplish much of anything.
-Maybe. BtS talks about the existence of different realities. It is possible Chi is not Chi everywhere; it's even possible that Chi does not exist somewhere.
-It's clear to you. Not to me. What is clear to me is that Chi is pathway to exploiting PPE. Precisely which passage you quoted are you talking about? I never claimed they switched subjects.

[Killer Cyborg]

The original context was BtS. And BtS does not say PPE is Chi.

That's a desperate reach on your part.

The original context of my question was BtS - if it wasn't, what was the original context?

I asked where BtS mentions Chi. I see nowhere in BtS that says "PPE is Chi".

-The context of the conversation is the megaverse in general.
-Chi is chi everywhere.
It might be represented differently in different games, but it's all the same energy.
-BtS doesn't spell it out, but it's clear from the passage I quoted.
They're talking about PPE, and go into a description of Chi.
Why? Because it's the same force.
They didn't switch subjects mid-passage.

- The context of my question was BtS. The context of my conversation as I have clearly stated is BtS and blood sacrifice. Going outside that context, hunting and pecking, and stitching different games together does not accomplish much of anything.

You didn't start the thread; you don't get to pick the context of the overall conversation, and you don't get to get indignant when I keep things in that context.
If you want to start your own thread and create your own context, feel free.

-Maybe. BtS talks about the existence of different realities. It is possible Chi is not Chi everywhere; it's even possible that Chi does not exist somewhere.

No, it's nor really possible that Chi isn't Chi everywhere.
That's like saying that Gravity isn't really Gravity everywhere.

-It's clear to you. Not to me. What is clear to me is that Chi is pathway to exploiting PPE. Precisely which passage you quoted are you talking about? I never claimed they switched subjects.

Chi is not a pathway; it's an energy.
If you don't understand the term, look it up.
If you want to make up new definitions, have fun... but it's not going to get you anywhere with this conversation.

[lather]

The book says that killing and drawing the PPE is evil.

Quote the passage(s) that says "killing and drawing the PPE is evil".

Well, the book never says it IS ceremonial magic; that's just something you've made up on your own.

It's clear from the context.

No, it's clearly NOT.
You need to work on your basic English skills.

Actually, it is clear. This sure is fun.

Ceremonial magic appears all over blood sacrifice description,

Yes, those words appear.
That does not mean that blood sacrifice is ceremonial magic, and if you READ the passages, it's clear that blood sacrifice is only the means to the end o the ritual being performed.
It's not the ritual itself.

I do not actually know what the ritual is. You do not know either. You cannot say "It's not the ritual itself". That is just what you think because the passages clearly mean that to you.

This is your classic 'kill a virgin'

This = blood sacrifice.
When I think of classic 'kill a virgin', I think of a ritual. So it is clear to me that blood sacrifice is the ritual being performed and not "only the means to the end o the ritual being performed".

I read the passages. The problem is not my English. The problem is that you think what is clear to you must be clear to everyone, and if it is not clear to them, then something must be wrong with them.

Blood sacrifice is killing with the intention of tapping into the PPE.
-Supported claim.
Blood sacrifice is killing a sacrificial victim to enable an evil mage to draw the doubled PPE.

No, that's not a supported claim.
It's just a claim.
Unless you can find a passage in the books that actually says that.

The reason for the sacrifice is that a person's P.P.E. surges at the moment of death.

In the foulest of ceremonial magic, the crescendo is the murder of the sacrificial victim, enabling the diabolical mage to tap the dying victim's doubled P.P.E., as well as his cult members'

If drawing the PPE is not evil, then why is intention to draw the PPE evil?

Because the method enabling the mage to draw upon PPE is evil. The books says the method is evil. The book does not say that drawing PPE is evil.

That doesn't answer the question.

I don't know why. Apparently motive is enough. Otherwise the book would say that drawing PPE is evil, rather than saying that killing in order to enable the drawing of PPE is evil.

If motivation was enough, then the books would say "attempting to kill somebody for their PPE is evil".
But the books don't say that.
They just say that killing people (or animals) for the PPE is evil.

Any good or selfish characters who willingly participate, in any way, with a blood sacrifice of a human being will have his or her alignment immediately changed to evil.

Participation in the blood sacrifice ritual in any stage is enough.

[lather]

You didn't start the thread; you don't get to pick the context of the overall conversation, and you don't get to get indignant when I keep things in that context.

I wasn't picking the context of the overall conversation. I was not indignant. I asked politely to keep answers to my questions in the context of BtS. Nothing indignant there.

-Maybe. BtS talks about the existence of different realities. It is possible Chi is not Chi everywhere; it's even possible that Chi does not exist somewhere.

No, it's nor really possible that Chi isn't Chi everywhere.
That's like saying that Gravity isn't really Gravity everywhere.

It is possible. Why is it not possible?
Different reality means different reality.

-It's clear to you. Not to me. What is clear to me is that Chi is pathway to exploiting PPE. Precisely which passage you quoted are you talking about? I never claimed they switched subjects.

Chi is not a pathway; it's an energy.
If you don't understand the term, look it up.
If you want to make up new definitions, have fun... but it's not going to get you anywhere with this conversation.

I am not making up any definitions. The book does not say Chi is PPE and it does not say PPE is Chi. It says that Chi is focus and that the key to unlocking P.P.E. is focus.

[Killer Cyborg]

The book says that killing and drawing the PPE is evil.

Quote the passage(s) that says "killing and drawing the PPE is evil".

I was paraphrasing, just like you were.
Only accurately.

Ceremonial magic appears all over blood sacrifice description,

Yes, those words appear.
That does not mean that blood sacrifice is ceremonial magic, and if you READ the passages, it's clear that blood sacrifice is only the means to the end o the ritual being performed.
It's not the ritual itself.

I do not actually know what the ritual is. You do not know either. You cannot say "It's not the ritual itself". That is just what you think because the passages clearly mean that to you.

"The ritual" is any ritual magic the evil mage wants the PPE for.
It's clear to me, and while it might be unclear to you, I suspect that you're the only one that doesn't understand the passage.
If you really don't get it, and aren't just pretending in order to troll.

This is your classic 'kill a virgin'

This = blood sacrifice.
When I think of classic 'kill a virgin', I think of a ritual. So it is clear to me that blood sacrifice is the ritual being performed and not "only the means to the end o the ritual being performed".

Look at how much you're projecting into that sentence that just isn't there.
Blood Sacrifice is your classic "kill a virgin".
That does NOT mean "Blood sacrifice is a ritual unto itself, performed before the actual ritual magic that the mage wants to cast".
There's nothing indicating that at all.

All it means is that blood sacrifice for the doubled PPE is the reason why cults stereotypically kill virgins.

Look at that sentence again.
"Classic 'kill a virgin'"
Think about the word "Classic".
It means, in this context, "traditional".. the way things are usually done.
It's a reference to all the horror movies, books, and other tales where an evil cult is looking for a human sacrifice to cast a spell.

The way those movies work is generally something like:
"We need to sacrifice a newborn baby during a ritual at midnight in order to open the gates to Hell!"
The way that those stories NEVER work, not once that I have ever seen or heard, is:
"We need to sacrifice a newborn baby during a ritual at midnight, then perform a second, seperate ritual, using the energy we gained from the first ritual, to open the gates to Hell!"

I read the passages. The problem is not my English. The problem is that you think what is clear to you must be clear to everyone, and if it is not clear to them, then something must be wrong with them.

No, the problem is indeed your English.

Blood sacrifice is killing with the intention of tapping into the PPE.
-Supported claim.
Blood sacrifice is killing a sacrificial victim to enable an evil mage to draw the doubled PPE.

No, that's not a supported claim.
It's just a claim.
Unless you can find a passage in the books that actually says that.

The reason for the sacrifice is that a person's P.P.E. surges at the moment of death.

In the foulest of ceremonial magic, the crescendo is the murder of the sacrificial victim, enabling the diabolical mage to tap the dying victim's doubled P.P.E., as well as his cult members'

[/quote]

Yeah, I've read it.
None of that says that Blood sacrifice is "killing with the intention of tapping into the PPE."
What it says is that, during ceremonial magic, a victim is often sacrificed and their PPE is tapped.

The word "intention" is not there.
If you kill the person, but don't tap the PPE, then it's not a sacrifice.
Then it's just murder.
(or, in the case of an animal, dinner)

If motivation was enough, then the books would say "attempting to kill somebody for their PPE is evil".
But the books don't say that.
They just say that killing people (or animals) for the PPE is evil.

Any good or selfish characters who willingly participate, in any way, with a blood sacrifice of a human being will have his or her alignment immediately changed to evil.

Participation in the blood sacrifice ritual in any stage is enough.

What is that supposed to have to do with anything...?

[Killer Cyborg]

Still, I don't buy your premise within the context of the game, that killing animals unnecessarily is evil.

Well, that depends entirely on how said animal was killed and how often the person in question kills animals. One of the earliest and most obvious signs of a sociopath and budding psychopath is the constant killing of animals just for fun. Now if we go into the whole "what is sentience?" portion of animals then we get to delve into all sorts of unpleasant variants in personal beliefs. Some people think apes are sentient while dogs aren't. I personally believe dogs are and suddenly I am at an impasse with this hypothetical contrarian.

The "killing = evil" portion of my point is probably not the most solid foundation I could build, but that's mainly because the game appears to only consider the killing of sentient beings to be an evil action. Where you draw the line there is up to you and that's where it makes this part more of a houseboat than a 3 bedroom 2 bathroom kinda place in the suburbs. Whereas in Underseas it discusses porpoises and various whales as fighting against the Lord of the Deep & its minions by their own free will, and any being with free will is pretty much sentient as far as the books are concerned. So here's an example of how this becomes "killing = evil" : you have tuna fisherman who get porpoises stuck in their net. If they don't cut them loose and free them, instead taking them back to be put in a Starkist can...this, by the book, is an evil action even though to the fishermen it's just a way of life.

It's only evil if you consider Porpoises to be sentient (sapient, really).
And I have a feeling that the writers wouldn't consider them to be.
In Creatures of Chaos, IIRC, it mentions that any time animals encounter a demon that has them as a weakness, the animals actively attack the demon.
But I don't think that makes them sapient either.

Still, let's look at this for a moment.
IF porpoises are sapient in the eyes of the authors, would they still be counted as "animals" for the context of the blood sacrifice passage?
I don't think so, because that would mean that an Unprincipled character could sacrifice one without dropping in alignment.

I'd consider sapient porpoises to be in the same realm as intelligent mutant animals. Sacrificing Splinter from the TMNT would be an evil act, and not just for good aligned characters.

[Killer Cyborg]

Which is why I acknowledged that it was more a matter of personal interpretation when judging the rules since the rules aren't really spelled out yet allude to a great many things with little clarification.

Can't really argue with that, then.

[lather]

The book says that killing and drawing the PPE is evil.

Quote the passage(s) that says "killing and drawing the PPE is evil".

I was paraphrasing, just like you were.
Only accurately.

The book never indicates drawing PPE is evil.
It only says there is an evil method enabling one to draw PPE.

Look at that sentence again.
"Classic 'kill a virgin'"
Think about the word "Classic".
It means, in this context, "traditional".. the way things are usually done.
It's a reference to all the horror movies, books, and other tales where an evil cult is looking for a human sacrifice to cast a spell.

The way those movies work is generally something like:
"We need to sacrifice a newborn baby during a ritual at midnight in order to open the gates to Hell!"
The way that those stories NEVER work, not once that I have ever seen or heard, is:
"We need to sacrifice a newborn baby during a ritual at midnight, then perform a second, seperate ritual, using the energy we gained from the first ritual, to open the gates to Hell!"

It is a separate ritual. Strung together, but separate nonetheless. There is the blood sacrifice, then there is the drawing of PPE, and then there is the magic using the energy gained from drawing the PPE.

There are three separate steps here.

The magic requiring more PPE than the mage has marked on his character sheet can only be performed once the mage has sufficient PPE. This separate from the blood sacrifice ritual, which requires no PPE - just the sacrificing of a victim.

Yeah, I've read it.
None of that says that Blood sacrifice is "killing with the intention of tapping into the PPE."
What it says is that, during ceremonial magic, a victim is often sacrificed and their PPE is tapped.

It says the mage is enabled to tap into the PPE. Not and taps into the PPE. It never says that PPE must be tapped into.

If you kill the person, but don't tap the PPE, then it's not a sacrifice.

If you kill the victim you have you sacrificed the victim. Whether you get the PPE or not does not change this. It does not say anywhere that the mage must draw the PPE for a successful blood sacrifice. It only says that the victim has to be murdered. Because blood sacrifice is an enabler for drawing the PPE. It says it in the book. The diabolical mage is enabled. Murdering the sacrificial victim is enabling the mage to draw the PPE. The blood sacrifice ritual is complete at the moment the diabolical mage is enabled. The condition is the enablement. The "reason for the sacrifice is that a person's P.P.E. surges". If PPE surges, the point of the sacrifice has been met.

If motivation was enough, then the books would say "attempting to kill somebody for their PPE is evil".
But the books don't say that.
They just say that killing people (or animals) for the PPE is evil.

Any good or selfish characters who willingly participate, in any way, with a blood sacrifice of a human being will have his or her alignment immediately changed to evil.

Participation in the blood sacrifice ritual in any stage is enough.

What is that supposed to have to do with anything...?

That the book does not "just say that killing people (or animals) for the PPE is evil." The book says more than that. The book says attempting to kill somebody for their PPE is evil because it is evil to participate in any way with the blood sacrifice ritual. Looking for a victim is participation. So looking for a victim is evil. Attempt is just one of several things that is evil.

[Killer Cyborg]

The book says that killing and drawing the PPE is evil.

Quote the passage(s) that says "killing and drawing the PPE is evil".

I was paraphrasing, just like you were.
Only accurately.

The book never indicates drawing PPE is evil.
It only says there is an evil method enabling one to draw PPE.

Drawing PPE is not evil.
Not unless you draw the doubled PPE from a death.

Look at that sentence again.
"Classic 'kill a virgin'"
Think about the word "Classic".
It means, in this context, "traditional".. the way things are usually done.
It's a reference to all the horror movies, books, and other tales where an evil cult is looking for a human sacrifice to cast a spell.

The way those movies work is generally something like:
"We need to sacrifice a newborn baby during a ritual at midnight in order to open the gates to Hell!"
The way that those stories NEVER work, not once that I have ever seen or heard, is:
"We need to sacrifice a newborn baby during a ritual at midnight, then perform a second, separate ritual, using the energy we gained from the first ritual, to open the gates to Hell!"

It is a separate ritual. Strung together, but separate nonetheless. There is the blood sacrifice, then there is the drawing of PPE, and then there is the magic using the energy gained from drawing the PPE.

There are three separate steps here.

The magic requiring more PPE than the mage has marked on his character sheet can only be performed once the mage has sufficient PPE. This separate from the blood sacrifice ritual, which requires no PPE - just the sacrificing of a victim.

Only you're just making that crap up, with no support from the books.

Yeah, I've read it.
None of that says that Blood sacrifice is "killing with the intention of tapping into the PPE."
What it says is that, during ceremonial magic, a victim is often sacrificed and their PPE is tapped.

It says the mage is enabled to tap into the PPE. Not and taps into the PPE. It never says that PPE must be tapped into.

If you want to think that Palladium was describing mages killing people in order to enable themselves to draw on PPE that they then didn't draw on, you go right ahead.
Just don't expect anybody else to buy it, and don't claim that it makes any sense.

If you kill the person, but don't tap the PPE, then it's not a sacrifice.

If you kill the victim you have you sacrificed the victim.

Nope.

Murdering the sacrificial victim is enabling the mage to draw the PPE.

And if the mage does draw that PPE, then the sacrifice is complete.
If not, then it's just a murder.

If motivation was enough, then the books would say "attempting to kill somebody for their PPE is evil".
But the books don't say that.
They just say that killing people (or animals) for the PPE is evil.

Any good or selfish characters who willingly participate, in any way, with a blood sacrifice of a human being will have his or her alignment immediately changed to evil.

Participation in the blood sacrifice ritual in any stage is enough.

What is that supposed to have to do with anything...?

That the book does not "just say that killing people (or animals) for the PPE is evil." The book says more than that. The book says attempting to kill somebody for their PPE is evil because it is evil to participate in any way with the blood sacrifice ritual. Looking for a victim is participation. So looking for a victim is evil. Attempt is just one of several things that is evil.

That's because helping sacrifice a human being makes you party to murder.
Murder is evil, whether it's a sacrifice or not.

[lather]

Drawing PPE is not evil.
Not unless you draw the doubled PPE from a death.

Nope.

Only you're just making that crap up, with no support from the books.

In order to get enough PPE for some magic, the mage must supplement PPE from another source. The magic that requires more PPE than the mage himself has is seperate from the methods he uses to supplement his PPE.

And all you can do is say I'm making things up and don't understand English.

If you want to think that Palladium was describing mages killing people in order to enable themselves to draw on PPE that they then didn't draw on, you go right ahead.

I do not know what they think. Neither do you. But I know what they wrote.

If you kill the person, but don't tap the PPE, then it's not a sacrifice.

If you kill the victim you have you sacrificed the victim.

Nope.

Why?

Murdering the sacrificial victim is enabling the mage to draw the PPE.

And if the mage does draw that PPE, then the sacrifice is complete.
If not, then it's just a murder.

Why?
The book does not say the mage draws PPE to complete the sacrifice, just that the mage murders the sacrificial victim.

If motivation was enough, then the books would say "attempting to kill somebody for their PPE is evil".
But the books don't say that.
They just say that killing people (or animals) for the PPE is evil.

Any good or selfish characters who willingly participate, in any way, with a blood sacrifice of a human being will have his or her alignment immediately changed to evil.

Participation in the blood sacrifice ritual in any stage is enough.

What is that supposed to have to do with anything...?

That the book does not "just say that killing people (or animals) for the PPE is evil." The book says more than that. The book says attempting to kill somebody for their PPE is evil because it is evil to participate in any way with the blood sacrifice ritual. Looking for a victim is participation. So looking for a victim is evil. Attempt is just one of several things that is evil.

That's because helping sacrifice a human being makes you party to murder.
Murder is evil, whether it's a sacrifice or not.

And so by the time we get to drawing PPE they are already evil, and evil people can do non-evil things.
Drawing PPE is not evil.

[Killer Cyborg]

Drawing PPE is not evil.
Not unless you draw the doubled PPE from a death.

Nope.

Yup.

Only you're just making that crap up, with no support from the books.

In order to get enough PPE for some magic, the mage must supplement PPE from another source. The magic that requires more PPE than the mage himself has is seperate from the methods he uses to supplement his PPE.

No shirt, shylock.
That doesn't have jack to do with what you just said.

And all you can do is say I'm making things up and don't understand English.

Correct.
Because that is the only thing I've gotten out of your posts in this thread so far.
Either that, or you're deliberately misunderstanding things for your own amusement or to boost your post count.

If you want to think that Palladium was describing mages killing people in order to enable themselves to draw on PPE that they then didn't draw on, you go right ahead.

I do not know what they think. Neither do you. But I know what they wrote.

Except, of course, you don't.
You can quote it, but you don't seem to actually understand the quotes, or the context of the quotes, or even all of the words used.

If you kill the person, but don't tap the PPE, then it's not a sacrifice.

If you kill the victim you have you sacrificed the victim.

Nope.

Why?

Because part of sacrifice is the gain you recieve in exchange.
Without that gain, it's not a sacrifice.
Just murder.

If motivation was enough, then the books would say "attempting to kill somebody for their PPE is evil".
But the books don't say that.
They just say that killing people (or animals) for the PPE is evil.

Any good or selfish characters who willingly participate, in any way, with a blood sacrifice of a human being will have his or her alignment immediately changed to evil.

Participation in the blood sacrifice ritual in any stage is enough.

What is that supposed to have to do with anything...?

That the book does not "just say that killing people (or animals) for the PPE is evil." The book says more than that. The book says attempting to kill somebody for their PPE is evil because it is evil to participate in any way with the blood sacrifice ritual. Looking for a victim is participation. So looking for a victim is evil. Attempt is just one of several things that is evil.

That's because helping sacrifice a human being makes you party to murder.
Murder is evil, whether it's a sacrifice or not.

And so by the time we get to drawing PPE they are already evil, and evil people can do non-evil things.
Drawing PPE is not evil.

I'll address each jumble of words separately:
1. "And so by the time we get to drawing PPE they are already evil".
Actually, in the case you're talking about, where the Good aligned person is only assisting, they're not the ones who draw the PPE. So it's a moot point.
2. "And evil people can do non-evil things"
They can also do evil things.
What about it?
3. "Drawing PPE is not evil".
Not unless you're drawing the doubled PPE from a dead person.

[lather]

Only you're just making that crap up, with no support from the books.

In order to get enough PPE for some magic, the mage must supplement PPE from another source. The magic that requires more PPE than the mage himself has is seperate from the methods he uses to supplement his PPE.

No shirt, shylock.
That doesn't have jack to do with what you just said.

Sure it does.

And all you can do is say I'm making things up and don't understand English.

Correct.
Because that is the only thing I've gotten out of your posts in this thread so far.
Either that, or you're deliberately misunderstanding things for your own amusement or to boost your post count.

Or you just don't get it.

Post count? Where did that come from?

If you want to think that Palladium was describing mages killing people in order to enable themselves to draw on PPE that they then didn't draw on, you go right ahead.

I do not know what they think. Neither do you. But I know what they wrote.

Except, of course, you don't.
You can quote it, but you don't seem to actually understand the quotes, or the context of the quotes, or even all of the words used.

I do.

I understand them just fine.

If you kill the person, but don't tap the PPE, then it's not a sacrifice.

If you kill the victim you have you sacrificed the victim.

Nope.

Why?

Because part of sacrifice is the gain you recieve in exchange.
Without that gain, it's not a sacrifice.
Just murder.

Nowhere it says tapping into the PPE is a requirement of blood sacrifice.
The only requirement is that PPE gets doubled, enabling the mage to draw the doubled PPE.

The reason for the sacrifice is that a person's P.P.E. surges at the moment of death.

PPE doubles, condition met. Ritual over.

I can see it going your way. I just don't think it does. And you have given me no reason to think I am wrong. All you are doing is telling me what I think, telling me what I know, telling me what I should think, telling me how I behave, and telling me how you think I should behave.

1. "And so by the time we get to drawing PPE they are already evil".
Actually, in the case you're talking about, where the Good aligned person is only assisting, they're not the ones who draw the PPE. So it's a moot point.

Participation in any way means you become evil if you participate in any way in the blood sacrifice ritual. It does not matter if you draw the PPE. It only matters if you participate. For example, helping find a victim.

2. "And evil people can do non-evil things"
They can also do evil things.
What about it?

Nothing. Drawing PPE is not evil. Ever. The book never says drawing PPE is ever an act of evil. Just an act that good, selfish, and evil aligned mages can do. They can do it without ever having their alignment changed or without ever violating the alignment rules.

3. "Drawing PPE is not evil".
Not unless you're drawing the doubled PPE from a dead person.

If you are drawing PPE from a blood sacrifice victim you are already evil. That does not make drawing PPE evil. It just makes you an evil mage drawing PPE.

[Killer Cyborg]

That doesn't have jack to do with what you just said.

Sure it does.

No, it doesn't.

And all you can do is say I'm making things up and don't understand English.

Correct.
Because that is the only thing I've gotten out of your posts in this thread so far.
Either that, or you're deliberately misunderstanding things for your own amusement or to boost your post count.

Or you just don't get it.

Doubtful.

Post count? Where did that come from?

Random guess.
I actually don't think this is one of the things you're after, but a lot of people are, for some reason or another.

You can quote it, but you don't seem to actually understand the quotes, or the context of the quotes, or even all of the words used.

I do.

I understand them just fine.

I disagree.

Because part of sacrifice is the gain you recieve in exchange.
Without that gain, it's not a sacrifice.
Just murder.

Nowhere it says tapping into the PPE is a requirement of blood sacrifice.

Again, you're having problems with English.
You don't grok the meaning of the word "sacrifice", so you apparently don't understand my perfectly clear point.

1. "And so by the time we get to drawing PPE they are already evil".
Actually, in the case you're talking about, where the Good aligned person is only assisting, they're not the ones who draw the PPE. So it's a moot point.

Participation in any way means you become evil if you participate in any way in the blood sacrifice ritual. It does not matter if you draw the PPE. It only matters if you participate. For example, helping find a victim.

Already addressed this point, and it's got nothing to do with what I posted above.
What I was doing was pointing out that whether or not they turn evil isn't relevent, because they're not drawing the PPE.
So whether or not the PPE-drawing is evil doesn't affect them, only whether or not being an accessory to murder is evil.
Which, of course, it is.

2. "And evil people can do non-evil things"
They can also do evil things.
What about it?

Nothing.

Then why bring it up?
Why imply that it supports your overall case?

3. "Drawing PPE is not evil".
Not unless you're drawing the doubled PPE from a dead person.

If you are drawing PPE from a blood sacrifice victim you are already evil.

Untrue.
If you are drawing PPE from a sacrificed HUMAN victim, then you are already evil.
If you are drawing PPE from a sacrificed animal, then you may or may not be evil.

Also, it's irrelvent.
Whether or not the mage is evil when he draws the PPE does not affect whether or not drawing the PPE is an evil act.
Evil people do evil things all the time.
Because they're evil.

[lather]

Again, you're having problems with English.
You don't grok the meaning of the word "sacrifice", so you apparently don't understand my perfectly clear point.

Again, you are telling me what I understand or don't understand.

I understand the meaning of the word "sacrifice".

Perhaps you will elaborate rather just repeat how ignorant you think I am?

And I do understand your point. Not only do I understand it, I also agree with it. I just like mine more.

A sacrifice ritual is performed in order to achieve something. I want the rains to continue. I want the rains to stop. I want bountiful crops. I want the guy next door. Whether or not I get what I want does not determine whether or not I have made a sacrifice; I have still performed to completion the sacrifice ritual. Successful or failed, I still completed the ritual. I still sacrficied something.

In the case of blood sacrifice and BtS, the thing I want to achieve is tapping into someone's PPE; this sacrifice ritual enables me to do just that. I have killed the sacrificial victim. His PPE surges. The heroes break down the door and put a few rounds through my forehead. You can say I merely murdered the sacrificial victim and I will not argue. I do argue however that you can also say I have sacrificed the sacrificial victim.

This sacrifice ritual, blood sacrifice, is a stepping stone enabling me to increase my PPE so that I can cast a spell, or perform another ritual. It is but one step in a number of other steps.

1. Victim sacrificed? Check.
2. PPE surge? Check.
3. Draw upon that? Check.
4. Sufficient PPE to cast a spell? Check.

After step 1, I am no longer sacrificing anything. The victim is dead. It is sacrficed and its PPE just surged. Time to draw upon it, step 2; I have moved beyond sacrificing, the moment of death and am now into the action of drawing on that surge (step 3). I'm loaded up on PPE now and ready for magic, which is step 4.

Sacrifice means enabling me to draw on the PPE. It does not mean I have to successfully draw on the PPE. Just like the rains do not have to actually stop, or start.

3. "Drawing PPE is not evil".
Not unless you're drawing the doubled PPE from a dead person.

If you are drawing PPE from a blood sacrifice victim you are already evil.

Untrue.
If you are drawing PPE from a sacrificed HUMAN victim, then you are already evil.
If you are drawing PPE from a sacrificed animal, then you may or may not be evil.

Maybe. The only way to get an animal's PPE is blood sacrifice. And blood sacrifice is evil.

Also, it's irrelvent.
Whether or not the mage is evil when he draws the PPE does not affect whether or not drawing the PPE is an evil act.
Evil people do evil things all the time.
Because they're evil.

I agree that alignment of the mage does not affect whether or not drawing the PPE is an evil act. That's my point: nothing does.

Evil people do non-evil things all the time, too. One of these non-evil things is draw PPE from others.

[Killer Cyborg]

Not debating here just clarifiying. The books don't say PPE gets doubled by doing a sacrifice. It gets doubled anytime a person dies. "For reasons unknown, a living bieng's PPE doubles at the moment of deth." Hit by a bus PPEx2. Piano dropped on them. PPEx2.

Exactly.
You don't need a ritual specifically to create that doubled PPE, or to draw on it.

Also technically it says "An EVIL mage takes advantage of this by murdering his subject..."

Technically this could mean that only Evil people can murder and draw PPE. That logically continues to only Evil people can murder. And only Evil people can draw PPE. But the books show good people can draw PPE. Thus is must be the combination of both acts.

Here's the thing.
Good people can draw on PPE, but I think there's a difference between drawing on the PPE of a willing subject and in stealing the energy created from somebody dying.
The fact that it's morally okay for Good aligned people to take PPE under certain circumstances does not mean that it's morally okay for them to take it under every circumstance.

It is very clear the doubling effect is caused by the death. Not how they died.

Agreed.
Heck, that's how the Coming of the Rifts happened in the first place.
A bunch of people got nuked, and their doubled PPE got sucked into the ley lines.
No ritual necessary.

Also very clear the Evil mage takes advantage of this by murdering his victim. Not killing.

Murder is different from killing. Same result just different paths. or views. And if all killing is evil then we have no good alinements as they do allow killing. They just have constraints on when its acceptable.

Hm.
I don't disagree here, though I might disagree with conclusions you might draw from this.

[Killer Cyborg]

Again, you're having problems with English.
You don't grok the meaning of the word "sacrifice", so you apparently don't understand my perfectly clear point.

Again, you are telling me what I understand or don't understand.

Yes.

I understand the meaning of the word "sacrifice".

Perhaps you will elaborate rather just repeat how ignorant you think I am?

Uh, I already did...

And I do understand your point. Not only do I understand it, I also agree with it. I just like mine more.

A sacrifice ritual is performed in order to achieve something. I want the rains to continue. I want the rains to stop. I want bountiful crops. I want the guy next door. Whether or not I get what I want does not determine whether or not I have made a sacrifice; I have still performed to completion the sacrifice ritual. Successful or failed, I still completed the ritual. I still sacrficied something.

THAT is the best argument you've made in this thread.
Coherent, and pretty logical.

I still disagree, but it's not a bad argument.

The thing is, when somebody sacrifices to get rain, what they're trying to do is to get the Gods' attention and hope the Gods intervene.
It's basically a phone call to the heavens, and killing the person/animal is dropping a quarter in the slot.
They kill the person, they get the gods' attention.
They get their phone call.
Whether or not the call gets the desired results is another matter; they payed for the call, not for the rain.

If you're sacrificing for PPE, then you're paying for that PPE.
You don't get that PPE, then it's an interrupted transaction.

In the case of blood sacrifice and BtS, the thing I want to achieve is tapping into someone's PPE; this sacrifice ritual enables me to do just that. I have killed the sacrificial victim. His PPE surges. The heroes break down the door and put a few rounds through my forehead. You can say I merely murdered the sacrificial victim and I will not argue. I do argue however that you can also say I have sacrificed the sacrificial victim.

Actually, that scenario doesn't quite work.
You get the PPE the instant the sacrifice dies, because the moment of death is when the PPE surges.
Remember that the sacrifice is the last part of whatever ritual magic is being performed, because that's when the PPE cost is paid.
So the instant that person dies, whatever spell you were trying to cast gets cast.
It can't be interrupted after the person dies but before the spell goes off; it happens simultaneously.

If you are drawing PPE from a sacrificed HUMAN victim, then you are already evil.
If you are drawing PPE from a sacrificed animal, then you may or may not be evil.

Maybe. The only way to get an animal's PPE is blood sacrifice. And blood sacrifice is evil.

But it can be performed by Selfish people on animals.

Also, it's irrelvent.
Whether or not the mage is evil when he draws the PPE does not affect whether or not drawing the PPE is an evil act.
Evil people do evil things all the time.
Because they're evil.

I agree that alignment of the mage does not affect whether or not drawing the PPE is an evil act. That's my point: nothing does.

Seems like a pointless point.

Evil people do non-evil things all the time, too. One of these non-evil things is draw PPE from others.

Except that drawing PPE from a dead person is evil.

[Mouser13]

Whats wrong with you guys it has kept up the rate of 1-2 pages a day grow.

Has I have said before it is evil under the abberrant alignment the ends justify the means.

[lather]

The thing is, when somebody sacrifices to get rain, what they're trying to do is to get the Gods' attention and hope the Gods intervene.
It's basically a phone call to the heavens, and killing the person/animal is dropping a quarter in the slot.
They kill the person, they get the gods' attention.

Not if killing the person is dropping the quarter in the slot they don't. They just get to dial the numbers; they are enabled to get the gods' attention. The dropped quarter is no longer the issue. Dialing the numbers is now the issue.

Dropping the quarter enables the guy to dial the numbers.
Killing the victim enables the mage to draw on the PPE.

If you're sacrificing for PPE, then you're paying for that PPE.
You don't get that PPE, then it's an interrupted transaction.

If you are sacrificing for PPE, then you're paying for the opportunity to draw on the PPE.

If you don't get the PPE, then you just wasted a quarter.

You get the PPE the instant the sacrifice dies

Source?

because the moment of death is when the PPE surges.

How fast is a surge? Is it instantaneous? The book says PPE surges, not instantly doubles. Furthermore, the idea of drawing PPE conjures the image of drawing water from a well. Which makes me think of time elapsing. It might be too fast to really notice, but even a nanosecond is not instant. The book does not say PPE instantly surges, just that it surges.

Remember that the sacrifice is the last part of whatever ritual magic is being performed,

Source?

I would say that the last part of the ritual is the actual invocation, not the sacrifice.

So the instant that person dies, whatever spell you were trying to cast gets cast.

Source?

The book says that when the person dies the mage is enabled to draw on the surging PPE. It does not say that the PPE instantly surges and the mage instantly draws the PPE and the invocation instantly goes off.

I can see a ritual combining a beheading with the invocation - muttering through the process of beheading someone - but the last part of the ritual is still the actual invocation. This requires instant doubling of PPE and not only instant doubling of PPE but instant drawing of PPE, though. Nowhere does the book say this is what happens. So rituals could not work like this in my games. There would just have to be some time delay.

If you are drawing PPE from a sacrificed HUMAN victim, then you are already evil.
If you are drawing PPE from a sacrificed animal, then you may or may not be evil.

Maybe. The only way to get an animal's PPE is blood sacrifice. And blood sacrifice is evil.

But it can be performed by Selfish people on animals.

This is not clearly written in the rules. It might be a slam dunk inference, but it's still an inference, and I don't think it's a slam dunk.

The book might be saying, "Good guys do not even blood sacrifice animals, because blood sacrifice is that hideous."

Or the book might be saying, "Good guys do not even sacrifice animals, because sacrifice is something good guys just don't do."

I'm hung up on the word even.

Evil people do non-evil things all the time, too. One of these non-evil things is draw PPE from others.

Except that drawing PPE from a dead person is evil.

Maybe, but I know for sure is that it's not written anywhere in the book that drawing PPE from a dead person is evil. So it is reasonable to concluce that drawing PPE from others - dead, alive, willing, or unwilling - is not an act of evil.

[lather]

A sacrifice ritual is performed in order to achieve something. I want the rains to continue. I want the rains to stop. I want bountiful crops. I want the guy next door. Whether or not I get what I want does not determine whether or not I have made a sacrifice; I have still performed to completion the sacrifice ritual. Successful or failed, I still completed the ritual. I still sacrficied something.

I would recommend rather than risking the repercussions of sacrificing something that you just go and borrow a cup of honey or chocolate sauce. That will make him wonder whats going on and open the door for some... fun... thoughts. Chat a bit then leave an open invite to say come over.

No. Must. Sacrifice.

[Natasha]

If you don't get the PPE, then you just wasted a quarter.

If you hang up before the call goes to voice mail you get your quarter back.

It's always best to just call god.

[Killer Cyborg]

The thing is, when somebody sacrifices to get rain, what they're trying to do is to get the Gods' attention and hope the Gods intervene.
It's basically a phone call to the heavens, and killing the person/animal is dropping a quarter in the slot.
They kill the person, they get the gods' attention.

Not if killing the person is dropping the quarter in the slot they don't.
They just get to dial the numbers; they are enabled to get the gods' attention. The dropped quarter is no longer the issue. Dialing the numbers is now the issue.

You don't have to dial any numbers; the gods have a direct line.

If you're sacrificing for PPE, then you're paying for that PPE.
You don't get that PPE, then it's an interrupted transaction.

If you are sacrificing for PPE, then you're paying for the opportunity to draw on the PPE.

If you don't get the PPE, then you just wasted a quarter.

As I've pointed out, you can't waste the PPE.
When you sacrifice them, the PPE is used.

You get the PPE the instant the sacrifice dies

Source?

"The reason for a sacrifice is that a person's PPE surges at the moment of death, doubling in strength (animals too).

And, of course, the part that describes collecting the PPE as the crescendo of whatever magic ritual it's used to empower.

because the moment of death is when the PPE surges.

How fast is a surge? Is it instantaneous?

Yes.

The book says PPE surges, not instantly doubles. Furthermore, the idea of drawing PPE conjures the image of drawing water from a well. Which makes me think of time elapsing. It might be too fast to really notice, but even a nanosecond is not instant. The book does not say PPE instantly surges, just that it surges.

Whatever weird imagery you project onto the act of drawing PPE is irrelevant.

Remember that the sacrifice is the last part of whatever ritual magic is being performed,

Source?

I would say that the last part of the ritual is the actual invocation, not the sacrifice.

You would be wrong.
The book clearly states that the last part of the ritual is the sacrifice.

[qutoe]

So the instant that person dies, whatever spell you were trying to cast gets cast.

Source?[/quote]

See above.
It's the last part of the ritual.

The book says that when the person dies the mage is enabled to draw on the surging PPE. It does not say that the PPE instantly surges and the mage instantly draws the PPE and the invocation instantly goes off.

It doesn't say that it takes any time, and there's no reason to believe that it would.

I can see a ritual combining a beheading with the invocation - muttering through the process of beheading someone - but the last part of the ritual is still the actual invocation. This requires instant doubling of PPE and not only instant doubling of PPE but instant drawing of PPE, though. Nowhere does the book say this is what happens. So rituals could not work like this in my games. There would just have to be some time delay.

Drawing PPE is an instant effect.

If you are drawing PPE from a sacrificed HUMAN victim, then you are already evil.
If you are drawing PPE from a sacrificed animal, then you may or may not be evil.

Maybe. The only way to get an animal's PPE is blood sacrifice. And blood sacrifice is evil.

But it can be performed by Selfish people on animals.

This is not clearly written in the rules. It might be a slam dunk inference, but it's still an inference, and I don't think it's a slam dunk.

You are wrong.
The rules are clear.
The only people who won't perform animal sacrifice are Good aligned people.

Evil people do non-evil things all the time, too. One of these non-evil things is draw PPE from others.

Except that drawing PPE from a dead person is evil.

Maybe, but I know for sure is that it's not written anywhere in the book that drawing PPE from a dead person is evil. So it is reasonable to concluce that drawing PPE from others - dead, alive, willing, or unwilling - is not an act of evil.

Then explain how killing an animal is not evil, but killing one for PPE IS evil.

[Prysus]

Greetings and Salutations. I won't get into the whole concept of it myself. I'll say personally, I think under the right circumstances, it is acceptable (there are ALWAYS exceptions to every rule). Since a lot of things are view points, I'll just stick to the book points which is where this is really getting into things. As one of the previous chatters did, I'll address a few points that are known.

1) First, Blood Sacrifice is not a ritual in and of itself. It is a "key component" in many "evil ceremonial magic." It is like pizza is not pizza just because you have the cheese or sauce, you need it all, those are just ingredients. Ritual magic is a lengthy way to cast a spell. Once the ritual is complete, the spell is cast (the same as once you finish an invocation the spell is cast). At the "crescendo" (climax) of the ritual is when the sacrifice takes place. Thereby, at the end of the ritual, meaning the spell is cast because the ritual is already finished.

2) Killing an animal is not inherently evil, not even in blood sacrifice as has been pointed out. Selfish characters can do it as well. Unprincipled, even described as a Han Solo type within the book (that's a game mechanics reference), could partake in this, so suddenly not so evil anymore. Though it is true, a good character will not (I'll address a few possibilities later).

3) Good people can draw PPE even from an unwilling victim (there is no rules against them stealing the PPE from the living), at least as far as the rules themselves are concerned. However, this is still the living and not the double PPE from dying admittedly, just a note to consider within the rest.

4) Good alignments are allowed to kill, just "never kill for pleasure."

With those points addressed (if I made some mistake in it feel free to address them, they could be in error though I don't believe so), I'll go into some other possible interpretations of it. As previously stated by another chatter, there is no set official answer, but I'll at least give the points to consider the points, disagree or not.

1) Killing an animal is killing. Look, the term has been used repeatedly to describe it: "killing an animal is not evil, but killing one for PPE IS evil." I'm not picking on any chatter with that quote, it was just the first I found. Killing an animal for food is one thing, killing one for pleasure is evil because it is killing for pleasure. Killing an animal for a spell is a selfish motivation, hence selfish alignments can do it. Murder is evil now and that is one reason only evil alignments can sacrifice a human. No, the rules never state specifically if alignments apply only to actions against humans, but if they listed every single possible consistency, that would be one enormously long book (series of books for that matter) and it would probably still leave something out, because gamers are very creative to find loop holes. Some G.M. sensibility is required (at least in my opinion).

2) A Blood Sacrifice within a ritual is more than JUST killing. I don't care if just an animal, it's more than just killing the animal. Why? This is a ceremony which takes a minimum of 20 minutes, and upwards of 2 hours. Now you have this animal strapped down so it can't flee knowing it is going to die, scared, wanting to live, but can't do anything about it ... and this goes on for 2 HOURS! This starts to transcend just killing something and could be argued as torture (psychological at the very least). Yes, animals do have emotions such as fear. The book even grants them the emotion of fear if you want a game mechanic aspect: "instinctively fear it." Good alignment: "Never torture for any reason." Scrupulous: "Never torture for pleasure; but may use strong arm tactics to extract information from criminals or evil characters." I don't believe animals fall under "criminals or evil characters."

3) These are all unwilling victims making it worse. It's not just taking something from them, it's killing them for something which isn't required for life (as previously pointed out by another chatter as well). I'm sure someone will want to mention "What if the person is willing" and yes that will make it trickier. Typically, a sacrifice (always if an animal) is not willing. Since this is mostly in regards to cults, even if a cult member said go ahead and do it, it is stated within the book that cults are based upon manipulation. Manipulating someone to kill themselves is still manipulating and not really their choice (yeah, it sounds kind of odd, but I hope you know what I mean).

Anyways, I think I'm done for now. Some of those comments were posted before, but I was way too lazy to go through 16 pages and see who said what and when (I tried to give a general recognition that it was said before). Most of these were my thoughts already, but I had yet to post. The second reason why sacrifice is wrong is the main reason I decided to finally do so. I feel, at the very least, that it adds a reason beyond just "double PPE" being wrong. It gives an alternate reason why it is wrong to commit a blood sacrifice on an animal as opposed to simply killing it. Disregard the information if one so chooses, disagree if you feel it is warranted, it doesn't make much difference to me. It's just one of those things I've been seeing and thinking "I should" say it, but haven't done so yet. It was nagging me, now it isn't. Hopefully it gave some thought to someone at least. Have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys.

[lather]

Whatever weird imagery you project onto the act of drawing PPE is irrelevant.

It is not weird. The book is replete with such imagery. PPE energy pools and reserves; PPE is like a natural gas, a natural resource; PPE can be molded, manipulated; PPE can be drawn from others and ley lines, it can be tapped into, and it can be drained; PPE surges; PPE can be directed; PPE fuels the cult leader; some people are immune to PPE vampirism (feeding); PPE is unleashed; PPE replenishes over time; and so forth.

It is not weird to conclude there is a temporal nature in PPE.

Remember that the sacrifice is the last part of whatever ritual magic is being performed,

Source?

I would say that the last part of the ritual is the actual invocation, not the sacrifice.

You would be wrong.
The book clearly states that the last part of the ritual is the sacrifice.

Maybe. The book clearly states that the crescendo of the ritual is the sacrifice; but whatever. Let's make believe that the last part of the ritual is the sacrifice. There is one more step before the magic happens. The mage still has to invoke the magic.

The point of the ritual is to supplement the mage's PPE pool so that he has sufficient PPE to pay to create the magic. Rituals exist because mages do not have sufficient PPE reserves of their own; rituals supplement the mages' PPE reserves.

Mages create magic. Rituals do not create magic; rituals just enable the mage to create magic. Just like it says in the book.

So the instant that person dies, whatever spell you were trying to cast gets cast.

See above. You're wrong.

This is how magic works.

1. Mage draws PPE from his PPE pool, which may or may not be supplemented by other sources.
2. Mage focuses on PPE to create magic.

These two steps occur "almost instantly".

The ritual supplements the mage's PPE pool. Once the ritual is completed, the mage's PPE reserves are supplemented. The mage still has to focus on the PPE (pay the PPE) to create magic.

It is false that the instant a person dies, whatever spell the mage was trying to cast gets cast. Nothing in the book supports this claim.

Then explain how killing an animal is not evil, but killing one for PPE IS evil.

Intention.

[Killer Cyborg]

Whatever weird imagery you project onto the act of drawing PPE is irrelevant.

It is not weird. The book is replete with such imagery. PPE energy pools and reserves; PPE is like a natural gas, a natural resource; PPE can be molded, manipulated; PPE can be drawn from others and ley lines, it can be tapped into, and it can be drained; PPE surges; PPE can be directed; PPE fuels the cult leader; some people are immune to PPE vampirism (feeding); PPE is unleashed; PPE replenishes over time; and so forth.

It is not weird to conclude there is a temporal nature in PPE.

It's weird to assume, based on the word "draw", that drawing PPE takes a significant amount of time.

The book clearly states that the last part of the ritual is the sacrifice.

Maybe. The book clearly states that the crescendo of the ritual is the sacrifice; but whatever. Let's make believe that the last part of the ritual is the sacrifice. There is one more step before the magic happens. The mage still has to invoke the magic.

Uh, no... he's already doing that.
That's the ritual in progress.
At the end of the ritual, when the only thing left to do is to pay the PPE cost, that's when the victim is killed in order to pay that cost.

So the instant that person dies, whatever spell you were trying to cast gets cast.

See above. You're wrong.

Seen above.
Not impressed.
Try again.

This is how magic works.

1. Mage draws PPE from his PPE pool, which may or may not be supplemented by other sources.
2. Mage focuses on PPE to create magic.

These two steps occur "almost instantly".

Wrong.
HERE is how magic works:
1. The mage starts chanting and waving his hands in order to focus.
2. The mage continues doing this until the last action of his spell casting time. If the spell takes three attacks to cast, then he chants and waves his hands for the first two attacks.
3. On the last attack phase of the spellcasting, the spell goes off, at the same time the PPE cost is paid.

The ritual supplements the mage's PPE pool. Once the ritual is completed, the mage's PPE reserves are supplemented. The mage still has to focus on the PPE (pay the PPE) to create magic.

It is false that the instant a person dies, whatever spell the mage was trying to cast gets cast. Nothing in the book supports this claim.

BoM 20
"When casting a spell, when does it go off?
The spell goes off, or takes effect at the very end of the invocation, i.e. during the last action in which it is cast. So if each spell counts as two melee actions to cast, the spell will not go off until the character's second action is up."

RUE 189
"When a spell is interrupted, the mage must start all over again. He doesn't lose the PPE (that's not spent until the spell is completed and cast), but he does lose precious time."

Then explain how killing an animal is not evil, but killing one for PPE IS evil.

Intention.

That's not an explanation; it's just one word.
Until you expend the effort to explain what the hell you mean, I'm just going to respond to you the same way; with short, one-word, completely vague BS answers.

[Killer Cyborg]

Actually I just found my own answer, well partially.

p186 RUE:

Drawing PPE from other living beings;
Most characters of Principled and Scrupulous alignments will NEVER even consider animal sacrifices. NOTE: Only characters of an evil alignment will consider the sacrifice of a human or any intelligent life form as a viable means of acquiring extra PPE. However, selfish characters may consider animal sacrifices and ANY alignment may be able to justify a blood sacrifice FOR THE GREATER GOOD OF OTHERS (ie, sacrifices a volunteer to work some great good or to save the lives of many, or justify killing an enemy and using his PPE to work some beneficial magic, etc.).

So, with this info, when it comes crunch time and Demons/Deevils/whatever are flooding towards my mage, I have not seen any evidence to say that I am unable to draw PPE from slain foes. The alignment question is not even a real factor as evidenced from RUE. It is not sacrifice in any way shape or form and I am befuddled as to how it even made it onto this thread. I have also not seen any evidence of the range - except on same page saying 20ft radius around the drawer for freely given PPE - that a mage may draw PPE.

The greater good of others is also relative. But my take on it for the spirit of the game is our classic WESTERN view of right and wrong.

Thanks for the input.

BoM 21

Are there any special rules for absorbing the PPE from the dying (when the PPE is doubled) or while in combat?
In most cases a sorcerer cannot draw on this PPE unless he is prepared for the release of PPE beforehand, such as during a blood sacrifice or being present at the moment of death and waiting for it to syphon the PPE when the individual passes away (i.e. dies in the mage's arms, or the mage is at the character's deathbead or within eyeshot no more than 20' away, and again waiting for it). During combat, the sorcerer is generally unprepared and can not draw on the PPE of a sudden death or even an opponent slain in hand to hand combat. In the latter case, he can draw on the PPE if he is the one who delivers the death blow and he knew as he struck that it would be a killing blow (most often one does not know). Otherwise, the PPE released at the moment of death dissipates before the mage can use it.

[lather]

Whatever weird imagery you project onto the act of drawing PPE is irrelevant.

It is not weird. The book is replete with such imagery. PPE energy pools and reserves; PPE is like a natural gas, a natural resource; PPE can be molded, manipulated; PPE can be drawn from others and ley lines, it can be tapped into, and it can be drained; PPE surges; PPE can be directed; PPE fuels the cult leader; some people are immune to PPE vampirism (feeding); PPE is unleashed; PPE replenishes over time; and so forth.

It is not weird to conclude there is a temporal nature in PPE.

It's weird to assume, based on the word "draw", that drawing PPE takes a significant amount of time.

My assumption is based on more than the word "draw". It is based on the description of PPE and the multiple uses of multiple verbs which require time to complete.

It may or may not take a significant amount of time - but it takes time. You claimed it takes no time. I disagree and tell why I disagree.

BtS magic works the way I described. It says that the mage draws on PPE which may or may not be supplemented. Once drawn the mage focuses the PPE and creates magic. The purpose of drawing PPE from others (of which ritual is a method) is only to supplement the PPE because he does not have enough of his own PPE to create the magic. Drawing and paying PPE happen almost instantly, which means drawing necessarily comes before paying.

The mage cannot focus PPE to create magic until the PPE is available - he cannot focus PPE he does not have. The PPE is available when the victim dies. It is two steps, regardless of ritual or simple spell magic.

1. PPE at its maximum is unleashed (available).
2. Mage focuses PPE into magic.

Then explain how killing an animal is not evil, but killing one for PPE IS evil.

Intention.

That's not an explanation; it's just one word.
Until you expend the effort to explain what the hell you mean, I'm just going to respond to you the same way; with short, one-word, completely vague BS answers.

I have already explained it. Several times.

Killing an animal for its PPE is evil, it is blood sacrifice. Killing the animal alone is not enough to make the act evil. Drawing PPE alone is not enough to make the act evil. The intention, the motive, is what makes the act evil.

If the book were more clear and said selfish aligned characters will blood sacrifice animals, then I am wrong. But the book does not say that. It is not clear to me that the book should say that, since it clearly says blood sacrifice is an evil method of drawing employed by evil mages.

[Killer Cyborg]

It's weird to assume, based on the word "draw", that drawing PPE takes a significant amount of time.

My assumption is based on more than the word "draw". It is based on the description of PPE and the multiple uses of multiple verbs which require time to complete.

Whatever.

BtS magic works the way I described. It says that the mage draws on PPE which may or may not be supplemented. Once drawn the mage focuses the PPE and creates magic. The purpose of drawing PPE from others (of which ritual is a method) is only to supplement the PPE because he does not have enough of his own PPE to create the magic. Drawing and paying PPE happen almost instantly, which means drawing necessarily comes before paying.

The mage cannot focus PPE to create magic until the PPE is available - he cannot focus PPE he does not have. The PPE is available when the victim dies. It is two steps, regardless of ritual or simple spell magic.

1. PPE at its maximum is unleashed (available).

It's not two steps; it's two things that are accomplished simultaneously, or so clost to it that it nets out the same.

Mage focuses PPE into magic.

Then explain how killing an animal is not evil, but killing one for PPE IS evil.

Intention.

That's not an explanation; it's just one word.
Until you expend the effort to explain what the hell you mean, I'm just going to respond to you the same way; with short, one-word, completely vague BS answers.

I have already explained it. Several times.

Not coherently.

Killing an animal for its PPE is evil, it is blood sacrifice. Killing the animal alone is not enough to make the act evil. Drawing PPE alone is not enough to make the act evil. The intention, the motive, is what makes the act evil.

What intention?
Why does the intention make it evil, if the act itself does not?
That's like saying that Attempted Murder is a greater crime than Murder.
It makes no sense.

If the book were more clear and said selfish aligned characters will blood sacrifice animals, then I am wrong.

The books say that, both in the passage I've quoted, and in RUE, as quoted by Mad Eagle.

[The Beast]

BoM 21

Are there any special rules for absorbing the PPE from the dying (when the PPE is doubled) or while in combat?
In most cases a sorcerer cannot draw on this PPE unless he is prepared for the release of PPE beforehand, such as during a blood sacrifice or being present at the moment of death and waiting for it to syphon the PPE when the individual passes away (i.e. dies in the mage's arms, or the mage is at the character's deathbead or within eyeshot no more than 20' away, and again waiting for it). During combat, the sorcerer is generally unprepared and can not draw on the PPE of a sudden death or even an opponent slain in hand to hand combat. In the latter case, he can draw on the PPE if he is the one who delivers the death blow and he knew as he struck that it would be a killing blow (most often one does not know). Otherwise, the PPE released at the moment of death dissipates before the mage can use it.

Thanks for finally pointing out the rule about battlefield deaths and PPE.

[Killer Cyborg]

BoM 21

Are there any special rules for absorbing the PPE from the dying (when the PPE is doubled) or while in combat?
In most cases a sorcerer cannot draw on this PPE unless he is prepared for the release of PPE beforehand, such as during a blood sacrifice or being present at the moment of death and waiting for it to syphon the PPE when the individual passes away (i.e. dies in the mage's arms, or the mage is at the character's deathbead or within eyeshot no more than 20' away, and again waiting for it). During combat, the sorcerer is generally unprepared and can not draw on the PPE of a sudden death or even an opponent slain in hand to hand combat. In the latter case, he can draw on the PPE if he is the one who delivers the death blow and he knew as he struck that it would be a killing blow (most often one does not know). Otherwise, the PPE released at the moment of death dissipates before the mage can use it.

Thanks for finally pointing out the rule about battlefield deaths and PPE.

Hey, I said "Generally the idea is that sucking the PPE from a death takes a bit of prep work, and isn't something you can do in battle anyway" WAY back on page one.
Not my fault that nobody listened.

[lather]

It's not two steps; it's two things that are accomplished simultaneously, or so clost to it that it nets out the same.

This is not your original claim, the one I was disputing.

If the book were more clear and said selfish aligned characters will blood sacrifice animals, then I am wrong.

The books say that, both in the passage I've quoted, and in RUE, as quoted by Mad Eagle.

Where does BtS say selfish aligned characters will blood sacrifice animals? You brought up blood sacrifice in BtS rules; when I talk about BtS rules, I talk about BtS rules. Since you won't, or can't, I'm done with you.

[Killer Cyborg]

It's not two steps; it's two things that are accomplished simultaneously, or so clost to it that it nets out the same.

This is not your original claim, the one I was disputing.

How not?

If the book were more clear and said selfish aligned characters will blood sacrifice animals, then I am wrong.

The books say that, both in the passage I've quoted, and in RUE, as quoted by Mad Eagle.

Where does BtS say selfish aligned characters will blood sacrifice animals? You brought up blood sacrifice in BtS rules; when I talk about BtS rules, I talk about BtS rules. Since you won't, or can't, I'm done with you.

It's a "megaversal" system.
Quit trying to divvy it up in to different books and pretend that the rules must be different somehow.

[lather]

So the instant that person dies, whatever spell you were trying to cast gets cast.

This means drawing and paying occurs simultaneously. The instant the person dies the magic is cast. Nothing about drawing and paying occurring so close in time that it is the same thing. My point is that they are two separate things, and since the timing is not explicitedly addressed in the BtS book, the door to several possibilities as a consequence of them being separate opens. If they occur simultaneously, then most or everything I am saying is wrong and/or not possible.

It's a "megaversal" system.
Quit trying to divvy it up in to different books and pretend that the rules must be different somehow.

Define "megaversal".

The fact is that sometimes the rules are different. Wondering around in other books looking for rules to replace rules in a game rather than just using the rules of the game is pointless.

[Prysus]

If the book were more clear and said selfish aligned characters will blood sacrifice animals, then I am wrong.

The books say that, both in the passage I've quoted, and in RUE, as quoted by Mad Eagle.

Where does BtS say selfish aligned characters will blood sacrifice animals? You brought up blood sacrifice in BtS rules; when I talk about BtS rules, I talk about BtS rules. Since you won't, or can't, I'm done with you.

Greetings and Salutations. And the answer to where it can be found is ...

Page 94 of BtS-1 defines blood sacrifice as evil ceremonial magic; sacrifice requires a victim. It is the "classic 'sacrifice a virgin'".

Exact same section actually. It starts off with the words "Evil arcanists" in bold, then go passed where it mentions blood sacrifice as a key component in a some rituals, go passed where it mentions a good or selfish character participating in a blood sacrifice of a human will immediately turned to "evil." Okay, are you there? Now read the very next line. "Principled and scrupulous characters will not even partake in the sacrifice of animals, but unprincipled and anarchist (selfish) alignments can." The very last line (it's second to last of that paragraph) of that paragraph references seeing Ceremonial Magic.

There you go, printed right there in BtS 1st Edition. I tried to put in parts so you know you went too far or not. I have a 4th printing of the book. With the detail though, you should be able to find it without much problem. If there is still a problem after all of that information, well, I don't know what more to tell you. Thank you and have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys to all.

[Qev]

Isn't this all pretty clearly laid out on RUE p.186?

[Killer Cyborg]

So the instant that person dies, whatever spell you were trying to cast gets cast.

This means drawing and paying occurs simultaneously. The instant the person dies the magic is cast. Nothing about drawing and paying occurring so close in time that it is the same thing.

I'll let you sit and ponder that last bit for a while.

My point is that they are two separate things, and since the timing is not explicitedly addressed in the BtS book, the door to several possibilities as a consequence of them being separate opens. If they occur simultaneously, then most or everything I am saying is wrong and/or not possible.

Your point is nonsense.

It's a "megaversal" system.
Quit trying to divvy it up in to different books and pretend that the rules must be different somehow.

Define "megaversal".

No.

The fact is that sometimes the rules are different. Wondering around in other books looking for rules to replace rules in a game rather than just using the rules of the game is pointless.

The rules are different when the books say that they're different.
When the books don't say that they're different, they're not.

[Daikuma]

And I'm not even really getting into deeper religous views here.

Or how about witchcraft or wicca? Is that evil? At one time it was. Punishable by death.

Are you talking about witchcraft, or wicca specifically?
Satanic witchcraft is evil.
Traditional European witchcraft was only punishable by death because it was mistaken for Satanism.

Do you mean Satanism (as in the the Christian religion, Satanism) or Devil Worship? Two WAY different things...

Also, Wicca is almost synonymous with pagan, in the sense it is almost universally used interchangably by the uninitiated. The take on all "Pagan" faiths though (as perceived by the various Christian religions) is that they are evil, if for no other reason that all that is outside the dogmatic law of most (not all) followers of Christ is considered evil by the establishment.

The term pagan is from Latin paganus, an adjective originally meaning "rural", "rustic" or "of the country." As a noun, paganus was used to mean "country dweller, villager." In colloquial use, it could mean much the same as calling someone today a 'Hillbilly'.

The semantic development of post-classical Latin paganus in the sense "non-Christian, heathen" is unclear. The dating of this sense is controversial, but the 4th century seems most plausible. An earlier example has been suggested in Tertullian De Corona Militis xi, "Apud hunc [sc. Christum] tam miles est paganus fidelis quam paganus est miles infidelis," but here the word paganus may be interpreted in the sense "civilian" rather than "heathen". There are three main explanations of the development:

(i) The older sense of classical Latin pāgānus is "of the country, rustic" (also as noun). It has been argued that the transferred use reflects the fact that the ancient idolatry lingered on in the rural villages and hamlets after Christianity had been generally accepted in the towns and cities of the Roman Empire; cf. Orosius Histories 1. Prol. "Ex locorum agrestium compitis et pagis pagani vocantur." From its earliest beginnings, Christianity spread much more quickly in major urban areas (like Antioch, Alexandria, Corinth, Rome) than in the countryside (in fact, the early church was almost entirely urban), and soon the word for "country dweller" became synonymous with someone who was "not a Christian," giving rise to the modern meaning of "Pagan." This may, in part, have had to do with the conservative nature of rural people, who may have been more resistant to the new ideas of Christianity than those who lived in major urban centers. However, it may have also resulted from early Christian missionaries focusing their efforts within major population centers (e.g., St. Paul), rather than throughout an expansive, yet sparsely populated, countryside (hence, the Latin term suggesting "uneducated country folk").
(ii) The more common meaning of classical Latin pāgānus is "civilian, non-militant" (adjective and noun). Christians called themselves mīlitēs, "enrolled soldiers" of Christ, members of his militant church, and applied to non-Christians the term applied by soldiers to all who were "not enrolled in the army".
(iii) The sense "heathen" arose from an interpretation of paganus as denoting a person who was outside a particular group or community, hence "not of the city" or "rural"; cf. Orosius Histories 1. Prol. "ui alieni a civitate dei..pagani vocantur." See C. Mohrmann, Vigiliae Christianae 6 (1952) 9ff.
-- Oxford English Dictionary, (online) 2nd Edition (1989)

By the way, as religions go, most churces in existence still view our little hobby here as 1) A religion or belief, and 2) Evil.

Even better food for thought, neh? Try not to choke on it folks...

[Mouser13]

Why did this post have to come back. Though just restating that ends jusifty the means is abberant alignment and their for it is evil.

[The Beast]

Why did this post have to come back.

Because people like to beat a dead horse.