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

[Killer Cyborg]

Care to list these people you're talking about?

Not by name; but TONS and TONS and TONS of these Scrupulous and Principled NPCs throughout the entire Rifts™ and PFRPG series who are possessed of Dragon's Claws, Dragon Scale Armors, Melee Weapons made from the bones of Supernatural Creatures, etc., etc., etc.

Somehow, other than the little "trademark" sign you put next to "Rifts", I'm not impressed.

[Killer Cyborg]

All of them are trained for it, but not all of them perform it on unwilling victims. Only the evil ones do that.

Going by the definition of willing and unwilling as stated at [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/]Dictionary.com[\url], I disagree. By defintion, an animal would be an "unwilling victim" and yet a scrupulous priest of light will offer them as sacrafice to Aco and the Juggernaut.

There's a difference between sacrificing an animal and in sacrificing a sentient being.

[Killer Cyborg]

How about the fact that the books state that blood sacrifice is an evil act...?

And hunting down people to make a stew in our society isn't?

???

Where did this blood sacrifice issue come from? We are talking grabbing PPE from those who are killed in a fight. Not a sacrifice.

Same diff.

And thats grabbing it before its dispearsed.

And we've yet to hear anyone say how its evil when we have OCC's that tend to be good out there stealing PPE whenever they can.

I don't think that there are OCCs that "tend to be good" but "steal PPE whenever they can."

And as for the Chinese Chi thing... like you have commented before on other points thats a cultural thing/ belief.

It's a belief that helped form the physics and metaphysics of the mega-verse, so it's pretty relevant.

[lather]

In BtS I am pretty sure it says that scrupulous will not participate even in animal sacrifice. It does not say they are strictly vegan, however. Sacrificing a victim on the altar and killing a foe on the battle field are not necessarily the same thing.

[Killer Cyborg]

In BtS I am pretty sure it says that scrupulous will not participate even in animal sacrifice. It does not say they are strictly vegan, however.

Exactly!
Killing an animal for food or fur is fine, killing an animal to drain their PPE is not.
Which indicates that killing for PPE is a more immoral act.

Sacrificing a victim on the altar and killing a foe on the battle field are not necessarily the same thing.

Agreed, unless you're sucking the PPE from the foe on the battlefield.
In which case it is essentially the same.

A soldier who thinks, "Hey, these dead enemies are just lying here anyway, and we're low on rations....", then proceeds to chow down, is essentially just as immoral as the psycho guy who invites his neighbors over for brunch without mentioning that they're the brunch.

[lather]

It comes down to killing to use the doubling of PPE and killing and using the doubling of PPE.

It is wrong for a scrupulous person to sacrifice but not to kill. And if ice is not water, then killing is not sacrifice.

Given the context of the original question, I stick with my original answer.

[Killer Cyborg]

It comes down to killing to use the doubling of PPE and killing and using the doubling of PPE.

It is wrong for a scrupulous person to sacrifice but not to kill. And if ice is not water, then killing is not sacrifice.

Given the context of the original question, I stick with my original answer.

Is there a difference between "killing a person in order to eat" and in "killing a person and eating them?"
Not so much.

[Killer Cyborg]

All of them are trained for it, but not all of them perform it on unwilling victims. Only the evil ones do that.

Going by the definition of willing and unwilling as stated at [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/]Dictionary.com[\url], I disagree. By defintion, an animal would be an "unwilling victim" and yet a scrupulous priest of light will offer them as sacrafice to Aco and the Juggernaut.

There's a difference between sacrificing an animal and in sacrificing a sentient being.

So you're saying that animals are not sentient? Nope, not gonna buy that.

Fair enoug; I mispoke.

Try:
"There's a difference between sacrificing an animal and in sacrificing a sapient being."

Also, the bit about killing an animal for food/fur and killing it for PPE being different is incorrect. In both cases the animal is being killed for something it possess that the killer does not. Wether it's food, clothes or magic energy.

Yet one is evil and the other isn't.

This is the reson that the palladium alignments are out of whack. If you're willing to take the life of a willing individual as an offering to a being that will bring you everlasting life or because the dogma you follow demands that you do so, you're automatically evil? Even though you would never, ever take a life under any other circumstances?

That smacks of principled, scrupulous, possibly unprincipled and aberrant.

Not sure what you're talking about there.

[Killer Cyborg]

If I am understanding what is being argued out here, and please correct me if I am incorrect, then it is impossible for a Psi-Stalker to have a good alignment and still kill and consume the PPE of (for the sake of the argument) a vampire. Yet RUE states that Civilized Psi-Stalkers can be and tend to lean towards Good and Selfish while Wild Stalkers can be of any alignment. Furthermore, WB 1 states the Stalkers particularly like to chow down (metaphorically) on vampires.

There's nothing in the books saying that it's evil for psi-stalkers to devour their prey's PPE.

[verdilak]

If I am understanding what is being argued out here, and please correct me if I am incorrect, then it is impossible for a Psi-Stalker to have a good alignment and still kill and consume the PPE of (for the sake of the argument) a vampire. Yet RUE states that Civilized Psi-Stalkers can be and tend to lean towards Good and Selfish while Wild Stalkers can be of any alignment. Furthermore, WB 1 states the Stalkers particularly like to chow down (metaphorically) on vampires.

There's nothing in the books saying that it's evil for psi-stalkers to devour their prey's PPE.

Nod, PPE isnt evil or good. And to be fair, to a Psi-Stalker, eating anyone's PPE wouldnt be considered good or evil. It's just the way they are. No more than saying an aligator is evil because it eats the bones of its prey along with the meat. Now, a deer might think the aligator was evil, as might some non-worldly O.C.C.'s think a Psi-Stalker of any alignment was evil for consuming PPE, as might a mage of any alignment. It all depends of the side of the coin you are on. A CS guy would definatly think a Psi-Stalker was good, even if that stalker was in fact evil as they come, for consuming PPE.

[lather]

It comes down to killing to use the doubling of PPE and killing and using the doubling of PPE.

It is wrong for a scrupulous person to sacrifice but not to kill. And if ice is not water, then killing is not sacrifice.

Given the context of the original question, I stick with my original answer.

Is there a difference between "killing a person in order to eat" and in "killing a person and eating them?"
Not so much.

Why do you conclude so? What leads you to this conclusion?

The difference requires a context in order to be measured. In some contexts I agree with you. In others, such as the original question, I do not. There is the question of context, situation, and intention. that must be answered. It is the act that leads to the doubling of PPE that, in my opinion, determines whether or not using the PPE is evil. PPE is merely cosmic energy power grid. Blood sacrificing a victim and killing a foe on the battle field... now there is a question of evil; the first is definitely evil, while the second needs more information to really know.

[Talavar]

This is the reson that the palladium alignments are out of whack. If you're willing to take the life of a willing individual as an offering to a being that will bring you everlasting life or because the dogma you follow demands that you do so, you're automatically evil? Even though you would never, ever take a life under any other circumstances?

That smacks of principled, scrupulous, possibly unprincipled and aberrant.

Killing a person, even a willing one, for your own gain or to follow the 'rules' of your faith isn't good. If you're doing it to get something out of it, that's anarchist at best; if you're doing it to follow rules, even personal ones, that's aberrant - which is one of the evil alignments, by the way.

[Killer Cyborg]

It comes down to killing to use the doubling of PPE and killing and using the doubling of PPE.

It is wrong for a scrupulous person to sacrifice but not to kill. And if ice is not water, then killing is not sacrifice.

Given the context of the original question, I stick with my original answer.

Is there a difference between "killing a person in order to eat" and in "killing a person and eating them?"
Not so much.

Why do you conclude so? What leads you to this conclusion?

Because the actions are the same; you still kill the person, and you still eat them.
Yes, there are some wild hypothetical situations where they're not the same, but those are the extremely rare exceptions, to the point of not being worth discussing.

The difference requires a context in order to be measured. In some contexts I agree with you. In others, such as the original question, I do not. There is the question of context, situation, and intention. that must be answered. It is the act that leads to the doubling of PPE that, in my opinion, determines whether or not using the PPE is evil. PPE is merely cosmic energy power grid. Blood sacrificing a victim and killing a foe on the battle field... now there is a question of evil; the first is definitely evil, while the second needs more information to really know.

Again, killing animals is not evil.
Sacrificing animals for PPE is (to an extent).
This shows that there's something about stealing that PPE that is immoral.

[lather]

Again, killing animals is not evil.
Sacrificing animals for PPE is (to an extent).
This shows that there's something about stealing that PPE that is immoral.

This shows that there might be something. I am not convinced.

Here's why.

Killing and sacrificing are different acts. One is evil, one may or may not be evil. The PPE issue is after-the-fact.

A scrupulous person does not sacrifice because performing a sacrifice is evil.
It is not so that a scrupulous person does not sacrifice because using doubled PPE is evil.

[Killer Cyborg]

Again, killing animals is not evil.
Sacrificing animals for PPE is (to an extent).
This shows that there's something about stealing that PPE that is immoral.

This shows that there might be something. I am not convinced.

Here's why.

Killing and sacrificing are different acts. One is evil, one may or may not be evil. The PPE issue is after-the-fact.

A scrupulous person does not sacrifice because performing a sacrifice is evil.
It is not so that a scrupulous person does not sacrifice because using doubled PPE is evil.

There are two elements of blood sacrifice:
1. Killing the victim.
2. Draining the PPE from the victim's death.

If the killing was the part that made blood sacrifice evil, then killing a cow for food would also be evil.
Which leaves the second component of the act; the draining/channeling the doubled PPE from the death.

[cornholioprime]

Again, killing animals is not evil.
Sacrificing animals for PPE is (to an extent).
This shows that there's something about stealing that PPE that is immoral.

This shows that there might be something. I am not convinced.

Here's why.

Killing and sacrificing are different acts. One is evil, one may or may not be evil. The PPE issue is after-the-fact.

A scrupulous person does not sacrifice because performing a sacrifice is evil.
It is not so that a scrupulous person does not sacrifice because using doubled PPE is evil.

:ok:
That says just about everything important in a nutshell.

It's much like picking up the Weps and Armor of an Enemy that you just defeated in battle, as opposed to offing the guy just beacuse you wanted his Weps and Armor.

PPE has no intrinsic physiological/psychological/metaphysical value to the body of the being that possesses it, any more than the aforementioned fingernails or hair clippings.

Therefore it is the motive, and only the motive, that determines the morality of PPE extraction.

Deliberately kill with malice aforethought to get it??
Bad.

If Johnny BaggaDonuts, Wizard extraordinaire is "walking by" and the target creature in question just happens to "drop" the PPE as it dies and the Wizard sucks it up??
Not bad.

[Killer Cyborg]

Again, killing animals is not evil.
Sacrificing animals for PPE is (to an extent).
This shows that there's something about stealing that PPE that is immoral.

This shows that there might be something. I am not convinced.

Here's why.

Killing and sacrificing are different acts. One is evil, one may or may not be evil. The PPE issue is after-the-fact.

A scrupulous person does not sacrifice because performing a sacrifice is evil.
It is not so that a scrupulous person does not sacrifice because using doubled PPE is evil.

:ok:
That says just about everything important in a nutshell.

Then I've already addressed "everything important".

It's much like picking up the Weps and Armor of an Enemy that you just defeated in battle, as opposed to offing the guy just beacuse you wanted his Weps and Armor.

Source?

PPE has no intrinsic physiological/psychological/metaphysical value to the body of the being that possesses it, any more than the aforementioned fingernails or hair clippings.

Source?

Therefore it is the motive, and only the motive, that determines the morality of PPE extraction.

Deliberately kill with malice aforethought to get it??
Bad.

If Johnny BaggaDonuts, Wizard extraordinaire is "walking by" and the target creature in question just happens to "drop" the PPE as it dies and the Wizard sucks it up??
Not bad.

Except, as I've pointed out, killing animals isn't evil, but killing them for PPE is.
IF PPE was akin to hair or fingernail clippings, then it would be evil to kill an animal for it's fur, but it isn't evil to kill for fur, or for meat, or for anything else except for PPE.

[lather]

Again, killing animals is not evil.
Sacrificing animals for PPE is (to an extent).
This shows that there's something about stealing that PPE that is immoral.

This shows that there might be something. I am not convinced.

Here's why.

Killing and sacrificing are different acts. One is evil, one may or may not be evil. The PPE issue is after-the-fact.

A scrupulous person does not sacrifice because performing a sacrifice is evil.
It is not so that a scrupulous person does not sacrifice because using doubled PPE is evil.

There are two elements of blood sacrifice:
1. Killing the victim.
2. Draining the PPE from the victim's death.

There is only one element of blood sacrifice and that is sacrifice.
PPE doubling happens whether there is sacrifice, slaughter, or killing: death by any means.

If the killing was the part that made blood sacrifice evil, then killing a cow for food would also be evil.

Killing is not evil, without a context. Sacrificing is evil, always. Killing a cow for food is not sacrificing. If it were sacrifice, then we would say "sacrificing the cow".

[Killer Cyborg]

There are two elements of blood sacrifice:
1. Killing the victim.
2. Draining the PPE from the victim's death.

There is only one element of blood sacrifice and that is sacrifice.

That doesn't make a bit of sense.

PPE doubling happens whether there is sacrifice, slaughter, or killing: death by any means.

If the killing was the part that made blood sacrifice evil, then killing a cow for food would also be evil.

Killing is not evil, without a context. Sacrificing is evil, always. Killing a cow for food is not sacrificing. If it were sacrifice, then we would say "sacrificing the cow".

That doesn't make any sense either.

You're going to have to elaborate a heck of a lot more if you want me to get what you're trying to say.

[lather]

Again, killing animals is not evil.
Sacrificing animals for PPE is (to an extent).
This shows that there's something about stealing that PPE that is immoral.

This shows that there might be something. I am not convinced.

Here's why.

Killing and sacrificing are different acts. One is evil, one may or may not be evil. The PPE issue is after-the-fact.

A scrupulous person does not sacrifice because performing a sacrifice is evil.
It is not so that a scrupulous person does not sacrifice because using doubled PPE is evil.

:ok:
That says just about everything important in a nutshell.

Then I've already addressed "everything important".

True. But you have not been convincing in demonstrating that intention is irrelevant. We're rolling towards an impasse.

It's much like picking up the Weps and Armor of an Enemy that you just defeated in battle, as opposed to offing the guy just beacuse you wanted his Weps and Armor.

Source?

If you kill a foe on the battle field, there is nothing in the scrupulous alignment preventing you from picking up his gear. There is something the in the scrupulous alignment barring you from murdering anyone - we do not even get to the point of picking up gear, the point irrelevant at this stage.

PPE has no intrinsic physiological/psychological/metaphysical value to the body of the being that possesses it, any more than the aforementioned fingernails or hair clippings.

Source?

PPE is a power grid of cosmic energy that ties the megaverse together. It is energy that flows through everything and people know how to use it. So do other supernasties around the megaverse. BtS-1 talks all about it.

As has been pointed out, the only thing happens PPE has been exhausted is nothing, except mages cannot cast spells.

It is well within reason to rule that PPE is simply energy with no value or worth to life. PPE exists without life. Life exists with only trace amounts of PPE (minimum of 2). PPE ties things together, it does not sustain anything. It is not a stretch to imagine a universe not plugged into the megaverse - i.e., lacking PPE.

Therefore it is the motive, and only the motive, that determines the morality of PPE extraction.

Deliberately kill with malice aforethought to get it??
Bad.

If Johnny BaggaDonuts, Wizard extraordinaire is "walking by" and the target creature in question just happens to "drop" the PPE as it dies and the Wizard sucks it up??
Not bad.

Except, as I've pointed out, killing animals isn't evil, but killing them for PPE is.
IF PPE was akin to hair or fingernail clippings, then it would be evil to kill an animal for it's fur, but it isn't evil to kill for fur, or for meat, or for anything else except for PPE.

You pointed it out. So?

If a character kills to consume the doubled PPE, then the character has made a sacrifice. The character has sacrificed the animal. And it is evil for a scrupulous person to sacrifice animals.

[lather]

There are two elements of blood sacrifice:
1. Killing the victim.
2. Draining the PPE from the victim's death.

There is only one element of blood sacrifice and that is sacrifice.

That doesn't make a bit of sense.

Why not?

PPE doubling happens whether there is sacrifice, slaughter, or killing: death by any means.

If the killing was the part that made blood sacrifice evil, then killing a cow for food would also be evil.

Killing is not evil, without a context. Sacrificing is evil, always. Killing a cow for food is not sacrificing. If it were sacrifice, then we would say "sacrificing the cow".

That doesn't make any sense either.

You're going to have to elaborate a heck of a lot more if you want me to get what you're trying to say.

There is nothing to elaborate on.

Sacrifice does not equal killing.
Killing is not sacrifice.
Only sacrifice is sacrifice.

If I slaughter a cow I have not sacrificed it.

[Killer Cyborg]

Then I've already addressed "everything important".

True. But you have not been convincing in demonstrating that intention is irrelevant. We're rolling towards an impasse.

Whether or not intention is irrelevant is irrelevant.

It's much like picking up the Weps and Armor of an Enemy that you just defeated in battle, as opposed to offing the guy just beacuse you wanted his Weps and Armor.

Source?

If you kill a foe on the battle field, there is nothing in the scrupulous alignment preventing you from picking up his gear. There is something the in the scrupulous alignment barring you from murdering anyone - we do not even get to the point of picking up gear, the point irrelevant at this stage.

PPE isn't gear.

PPE has no intrinsic physiological/psychological/metaphysical value to the body of the being that possesses it, any more than the aforementioned fingernails or hair clippings.

Source?

PPE is a power grid of cosmic energy that ties the megaverse together. It is energy that flows through everything and people know how to use it. So do other supernasties around the megaverse. BtS-1 talks all about it.

As has been pointed out, the only thing happens PPE has been exhausted is nothing, except mages cannot cast spells.

Except in N&S, where being drained of Chi means you can't heal.

But rereading the original claim, I can agree with it for now.
PPE does not have any intrinsic value to the body.
But it doesn't have to; you're not committing a crime against the body, you're committing a crime against the being.

It is well within reason to rule that PPE is simply energy with no value or worth to life. PPE exists without life. Life exists with only trace amounts of PPE (minimum of 2). PPE ties things together, it does not sustain anything. It is not a stretch to imagine a universe not plugged into the megaverse - i.e., lacking PPE.

Again, PPE is Chi.
Try telling the Chinese that Chi has no value or worth to life.

Except, as I've pointed out, killing animals isn't evil, but killing them for PPE is.
IF PPE was akin to hair or fingernail clippings, then it would be evil to kill an animal for it's fur, but it isn't evil to kill for fur, or for meat, or for anything else except for PPE.

You pointed it out. So?

If a character kills to consume the doubled PPE, then the character has made a sacrifice. The character has sacrificed the animal. And it is evil for a scrupulous person to sacrifice animals.

Right.
Which gets back to the question of WHY it's evil to sacrifice.
Obviously, it's not because of the killing.
Therefore, it's because of the draining of the doubled PPE.

[lather]

PPE isn't gear.

That's my point exactly. It is the actions that leads up to taking PPE or taking gear which really matters - not the PPE and not the gear.

Except in N&S, where being drained of Chi means you can't heal.

But rereading the original claim, I can agree with it for now.
PPE does not have any intrinsic value to the body.
But it doesn't have to; you're not committing a crime against the body, you're committing a crime against the being.

PPE and Chi is a mess, like you said. But we were talking about blood sacrifice and BtS.

Again, PPE is Chi.
Try telling the Chinese that Chi has no value or worth to life.

Try telling me it has.

Which gets back to the question of WHY it's evil to sacrifice.
Obviously, it's not because of the killing.

Why obviously?
A scrupulous cannot sacrifice because it is evil to kill in that context. Nothing about PPE here.

[Killer Cyborg]

PPE isn't gear.

That's my point exactly. It is the actions that leads up to taking PPE or taking gear which really matters - not the PPE and not the gear.

If you agree that PPE isn't gear, why do you insist on comparing them?

Except in N&S, where being drained of Chi means you can't heal.

But rereading the original claim, I can agree with it for now.
PPE does not have any intrinsic value to the body.
But it doesn't have to; you're not committing a crime against the body, you're committing a crime against the being.

PPE and Chi is a mess, like you said. But we were talking about blood sacrifice and BtS.

We're talking about Blood Sacrifice in general.
And we're talking about why it's evil.

Again, PPE is Chi.
Try telling the Chinese that Chi has no value or worth to life.

Try telling me it has.

Okay; it has.

Which gets back to the question of WHY it's evil to sacrifice.
Obviously, it's not because of the killing.

Why obviously?
A scrupulous cannot sacrifice because it is evil to kill in that context. Nothing about PPE here.

1. Sacrifice isn't evil. A good aligned person can sacrifice a chicken or Goat in the name of their god, as long as they're not draining the PPE from the act.
2. Why would it be evil to kill in the context of blood sacrifice if not because it's evil to use the PPE gained from the death?

[lather]

PPE isn't gear.

That's my point exactly. It is the actions that leads up to taking PPE or taking gear which really matters - not the PPE and not the gear.

If you agree that PPE isn't gear, why do you insist on comparing them?

I don't insist. It was your example.

Except in N&S, where being drained of Chi means you can't heal.

But rereading the original claim, I can agree with it for now.
PPE does not have any intrinsic value to the body.
But it doesn't have to; you're not committing a crime against the body, you're committing a crime against the being.

PPE and Chi is a mess, like you said. But we were talking about blood sacrifice and BtS.

We're talking about Blood Sacrifice in general.
And we're talking about why it's evil.

The rules of blood sacrifice you quoted where in BtS. It is evil because the book says it is evil to sacrifice - whether you sacrifice for PPE or not is irrelevant.

Again, PPE is Chi.
Try telling the Chinese that Chi has no value or worth to life.

Try telling me it has.

Okay; it has.

Wrong.

1. Sacrifice isn't evil. A good aligned person can sacrifice a chicken or Goat in the name of their god, as long as they're not draining the PPE from the act.

Scrupulous character cannot sacrifice anything for any reason.

2. Why would it be evil to kill in the context of blood sacrifice if not because it's evil to use the PPE gained from the death?

Because sacrifice needs a victim, an innocent and unarmed individual killed in a ritual. That is evil.

[Killer Cyborg]

PPE isn't gear.

That's my point exactly. It is the actions that leads up to taking PPE or taking gear which really matters - not the PPE and not the gear.

If you agree that PPE isn't gear, why do you insist on comparing them?

I don't insist. It was your example.

No, it was Cornholios, and you keep bringing it up.
The only time I've mentioned it is in response to one of you doing it.

We're talking about Blood Sacrifice in general.
And we're talking about why it's evil.

The rules of blood sacrifice you quoted where in BtS. It is evil because the book says it is evil to sacrifice - whether you sacrifice for PPE or not is irrelevant.

Again, the book doesn't say that sacrifice is evil.
It just says that blood sacrifice (killing for the doubled PPE) is evil.

it has.

Wrong.

Prove it.

1. Sacrifice isn't evil. A good aligned person can sacrifice a chicken or Goat in the name of their god, as long as they're not draining the PPE from the act.

Scrupulous character cannot sacrifice anything for any reason.

Source?

2. Why would it be evil to kill in the context of blood sacrifice if not because it's evil to use the PPE gained from the death?

Because sacrifice needs a victim, an innocent and unarmed individual killed in a ritual. That is evil.

Except that the victim of a sacrifice doesn't have to be innocent, and it doesn't have to be unarmed.

And, yet again, it's NOT evil to kill an innocent and unarmed chicken for stew, it's not evil to kill an innocent and unarmed chicken in the name of a God, but it IS evil to kill an innocent and unarmed chicken to drain its PPE.
It's the use of the doubled PPE that's the factor.

[Killer Cyborg]

At what point in time did every single Chinese person on Earth have the exact same belief about Chi? Wouldn't the better wording be "ask any Chinese who believes in Chi" instead of just assuming that over 2 billion people have identical beliefs regarding an unproven mystic notion? Which in turn would make it more appropriate to say "Ask anyone who believes in Chi" rather than just automatically making the assumption that an entire race of people are identical in their spiritual beliefs.

True enough.

I hereby apologize to every single Chinese person on Earth.

[rat_bastard]

At what point in time did every single Chinese person on Earth have the exact same belief about Chi? Wouldn't the better wording be "ask any Chinese who believes in Chi" instead of just assuming that over 2 billion people have identical beliefs regarding an unproven mystic notion? Which in turn would make it more appropriate to say "Ask anyone who believes in Chi" rather than just automatically making the assumption that an entire race of people are identical in their spiritual beliefs.

True enough.

I hereby apologize to every single Chinese person on Earth.

all but one accept your apology, wanf fung dong just does not like cyborgs... or people who come up with cartoony sounding Asian names.

[Killer Cyborg]

wanf fung dong just does not like cyborgs... or people who come up with cartoony sounding Asian names.

Then let us kill him.

[rat_bastard]

wanf fung dong just does not like cyborgs... or people who come up with cartoony sounding Asian names.

Then let us kill him.

My man crush on Killa Cyborg is not abating...

[cornholioprime]

If you kill a foe on the battle field, there is nothing in the scrupulous alignment preventing you from picking up his gear. There is something the in the scrupulous alignment barring you from murdering anyone - we do not even get to the point of picking up gear, the point irrelevant at this stage.

:ok:

PPE is a power grid of cosmic energy that ties the megaverse together. It is energy that flows through everything and people know how to use it. So do other supernasties around the megaverse. BtS-1 talks all about it.

As has been pointed out, the only thing happens PPE has been exhausted is nothing, except mages cannot cast spells.

It is well within reason to rule that PPE is simply energy with no value or worth to life. PPE exists without life. Life exists with only trace amounts of PPE (minimum of 2). PPE ties things together, it does not sustain anything. It is not a stretch to imagine a universe not plugged into the megaverse - i.e., lacking PPE.

:ok:

If a character kills to consume the doubled PPE, then the character has made a sacrifice. The character has sacrificed the animal. And it is evil for a scrupulous person to sacrifice animals.

:ok:

[The Beast]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't you only utilize the doubled PPE at death as part of a ritual sacrifice?

This sounds right to me. Pretty sure there's a rule against collecting someone's PPE during combat.

[lather]

Again, the book doesn't say that sacrifice is evil.
It just says that blood sacrifice (killing for the doubled PPE) is evil.

Intention. My point all along.
Blood sacrifice is an enabler. When somethig dies, PPE is doubled. An evil arcanist will use blood sacrifice to create a situation in which he can take advantage of this natural occurrance. Sacrifice is described as both evil and hideous; consuming the PPE is not. The arcanist's intention is evil. That is why only evil arcanists can sacrifice humans. Because sacrificing humans (for any reason, whether for PPE or as an offering to a god or some sick fantasy) is evil.

1. Sacrifice isn't evil. A good aligned person can sacrifice a chicken or Goat in the name of their god, as long as they're not draining the PPE from the act.

Scrupulous character cannot sacrifice anything for any reason.

Source?

The lines where it says good aligned characters will not sacrfice humans or animals.

2. Why would it be evil to kill in the context of blood sacrifice if not because it's evil to use the PPE gained from the death?

Because sacrifice needs a victim, an innocent and unarmed individual killed in a ritual. That is evil.

Except that the victim of a sacrifice doesn't have to be innocent, and it doesn't have to be unarmed.

Ok. Just needs a victim. Again, intention.

And, yet again, it's NOT evil to kill an innocent and unarmed chicken for stew, it's not evil to kill an innocent and unarmed chicken in the name of a God, but it IS evil to kill an innocent and unarmed chicken to drain its PPE.
It's the use of the doubled PPE that's the factor.

Intention is the factor.
And good aligned characters do not sacrifice animals.

[Killer Cyborg]

Again, the book doesn't say that sacrifice is evil.
It just says that blood sacrifice (killing for the doubled PPE) is evil.

Intention. My point all along.
Blood sacrifice is an enabler. When somethig dies, PPE is doubled. An evil arcanist will use blood sacrifice to create a situation in which he can take advantage of this natural occurrance. Sacrifice is described as both evil and hideous; consuming the PPE is not. The arcanist's intention is evil. That is why only evil arcanists can sacrifice humans. Because sacrificing humans (for any reason, whether for PPE or as an offering to a god or some sick fantasy) is evil.

1. Sacrifice isn't evil. A good aligned person can sacrifice a chicken or Goat in the name of their god, as long as they're not draining the PPE from the act.

Scrupulous character cannot sacrifice anything for any reason.

Source?

The lines where it says good aligned characters will not sacrfice humans or animals.

It's talking specifically about sacrificing them for PPE.
That's what that whole section is about.

And, yet again, it's NOT evil to kill an innocent and unarmed chicken for stew, it's not evil to kill an innocent and unarmed chicken in the name of a God, but it IS evil to kill an innocent and unarmed chicken to drain its PPE.
It's the use of the doubled PPE that's the factor.

Intention is the factor.
And good aligned characters do not sacrifice animals.

It makes no sense to claim that it's intention to kill somebody for their PPE that's evil, not actually killing somebody for their PPE or draining it.
I think the key at this point is that you're taking the book's statements about blood sacrifice and applying it to all sacrifice, when it clearly is only talking about killing for the PPE.

[lather]

Again, the book doesn't say that sacrifice is evil.
It just says that blood sacrifice (killing for the doubled PPE) is evil.

Intention. My point all along.
Blood sacrifice is an enabler. When somethig dies, PPE is doubled. An evil arcanist will use blood sacrifice to create a situation in which he can take advantage of this natural occurrance. Sacrifice is described as both evil and hideous; consuming the PPE is not. The arcanist's intention is evil. That is why only evil arcanists can sacrifice humans. Because sacrificing humans (for any reason, whether for PPE or as an offering to a god or some sick fantasy) is evil.

1. Sacrifice isn't evil. A good aligned person can sacrifice a chicken or Goat in the name of their god, as long as they're not draining the PPE from the act.

Scrupulous character cannot sacrifice anything for any reason.

Source?

The lines where it says good aligned characters will not sacrfice humans or animals.

It's talking specifically about sacrificing them for PPE.
That's what that whole section is about.

Yes, I know. I read the section. However, I still fail to find where it says drawing on PPE is evil. On the other hand, I do see quite clearly where it says that sacrificing a victim is evil.

It makes no sense to claim that it's intention to kill somebody for their PPE that's evil, not actually killing somebody for their PPE or draining it.

The act of evil is the sacrifice. What separates sacrifice from killing is intention. It is premeditated murder. It makes a lot of sense.

I think the key at this point is that you're taking the book's statements about blood sacrifice and applying it to all sacrifice, when it clearly is only talking about killing for the PPE.

I'm not doing that.
What I am doing is pointing out that the text says blood sacrifice is evil, not using the doubled PPE is evil. The book says explicitly that the purpose of blood sacrifice is to enable an evil arcanist to take advantage of a natural phenomenon. If the arcanists sacrifices the victim and somehow misses the PPE through a distraction or starts choking on the chalice of blood he is drinking or whatever the ritual calls for, he has committed an evil act.
Using the PPE or not is irrelevant.

A good aligned character will not use the doubled PPE not because that is evil, but rather that blood sacrifice is evil.

[Killer Cyborg]

The lines where it says good aligned characters will not sacrfice humans or animals.

It's talking specifically about sacrificing them for PPE.
That's what that whole section is about.

Yes, I know. I read the section. However, I still fail to find where it says drawing on PPE is evil. On the other hand, I do see quite clearly where it says that sacrificing a victim is evil.

So what we have is:
-Sacrificing an animal for PPE is evil.
-Sacrificing an animal for other purposes is not.
-Killing an animal for other purposes is not.

Which leaves the draining of the doubled PPE as the significant factor.

It makes no sense to claim that it's intention to kill somebody for their PPE that's evil, not actually killing somebody for their PPE or draining it.

The act of evil is the sacrifice. What separates sacrifice from killing is intention. It is premeditated murder. It makes a lot of sense.

Good aligned people can kill animals all they want with as much premeditation as they want, but it's still not evil.
The only different factor with blood sacrifice is the drawing of the doubled PPE.

If the arcanists sacrifices the victim and somehow misses the PPE through a distraction or starts choking on the chalice of blood he is drinking or whatever the ritual calls for, he has committed an evil act. Using the PPE or not is irrelevant.

Interesting argument, actually.
But the books don't say that it's still an evil act if you fail to draw the PPE.
If you fail to draw the PPE, then it's not a full sacrifice; it's either murder (evil in it's own right) or the killing of an animal (not evil in it's own right).
Without drawing the PPE, it's just an attempted sacrifice.

[Killer Cyborg]

While the descriptors throughout the Paladium realm for PPE and CHI are similar I would like to point out that characters from Ninjas & Superspies that are converted to a MDC (Rifts) setting gain a few PPE and KEEP their Chi and Chi abilities. It nowhere says they convert their Chi to PPE. Thus as far as Paladium is concerned while there may be similarities they ARE NOT the same form of energy. (and as Killer likes asking for sources Rifts Conversion Book.)

Their PPE is not converted to Chi, but the books (like BtS), in describing PPE, do say that it IS Chi.

Sacrificing doesn't need to involve PPE. If some fool Sacrifices a person or animal to some unknown God but is not a PPE user they can't use the PPE but they still have commited the Evil act of Sacrificing a sentient creature. Maybe they think they are giving the power to thier god? But since Sacrificing was around before the concept of PPE I can't say the 2 are linked. Maybe they are being sacrificed for thier Chi or Karma or life force etc etc. or just because the person is a fool and thinks its cool.

The books never indicate that sacrificing an animal for a God is evil, only that sacrificing them for PPE is.

If draining PPE was evil as per the rules on its own then PSi stalkers and similar classes whould not be allowed to be good because there would be no circumstance for them to gather any PPE ever thus they would just die or become evil.

You're assuming that there it's morally the same to absorb somebody's PPE for a spell and to absorb somebody's PPE for food.
It's not.
Just like killing an animal for food isn't evil, but killing them for PPE to power a spell is.

[Killer Cyborg]

We ALL agree to kill for the sole reason to steal their PPE is evil. Be it sacrifice or murder.

But killing in self defense and THEN takng the resulting PPE is whats being debated here. A group of Vampires attacks your group and as they get killed by various members of the group the PPE users are grabbing that PPE...... is that evil?

Most if not all of us here seem to say No.

I think you alone in that it is.

Right.
Which means that the rest of you should get on board and change your views.

[Killer Cyborg]

Right.
Which means that the rest of you should get on board and change your views.

LMAO!!

I REALLY hope u just forgot your smiley face at the end of that.

I didn't forget; I just like deadpan humor sometimes.

[cornholioprime]

What I am doing is pointing out that the text says blood sacrifice is evil, not using the doubled PPE is evil. The book says explicitly that the purpose of blood sacrifice is to enable an evil arcanist to take advantage of a natural phenomenon. If the arcanists sacrifices the victim and somehow misses the PPE through a distraction or starts choking on the chalice of blood he is drinking or whatever the ritual calls for, he has committed an evil act.
Using the PPE or not is irrelevant.

A good aligned character will not use the doubled PPE not because that is evil, but rather that blood sacrifice is evil.

More
(And my thanks for saving me even more typing.)

[cornholioprime]

We ALL agree to kill for the sole reason to steal their PPE is evil. Be it sacrifice or murder.

But killing in self defense and THEN takng the resulting PPE is whats being debated here. A group of Vampires attacks your group and as they get killed by various members of the group the PPE users are grabbing that PPE...... is that evil?

Most if not all of us here seem to say No.

I think you alone in that it is.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Since PPE exists not only in individual living beings but also within planets and even in space, there's no special quality to its being in a human(oid) body whatsoever; it's just another "element" that makes up the body like iron and carbon and hydrogen.

It's not the psionic essence of the person; it's not even that person's protoplasmic being or astral self.
It's not that person's life force.
It's not even as "important" as that person's lifeblood.
And in terms of palladium energy sources, PPE is no more "special" or "taboo" an energy form than static electricity.

It's Chi.
If you don't think there's anything special about it being in people, tell that to the Chinese.

Chi is Chi. PPE is PPE. There is a spell called Convert Chi to PPE, and vise versa. Obviously, they are not the same.

[lather]

There are several methods listed for tapping into PPE from others. Nowhere does it say tapping into PPE from others is evil whatsoever.

The question for the character is not if he will tap into the PPE, but whether he will participate in the evil ceremonial magic. The goal of the blood sacrifice is to use an evil method to enable the evil mage to exploit a naturally occurring phenomenon.

A good or selfish character does not tap into this natural phenomenon not because tapping into it is evil, but, rather, because the method to produce this natural phenomenon is evil. They have qualms about murder, not tapping into PPE.

The "hideous act of evil" is the murder of the victim. A good or selfish character cannot get beyond this point. Tapping into PPE or not is not the obstacle to good and selfish characters; it's the murder. Evil characters have no qualms about the murder, and so have no obstacles preventing them to exploit a natural occurrance brought about by murder.

Blood sacrifice falls into the category of evil ceremonial magic. Why? Because it involves an evil act: murder. Nowhere is tapping into PPE a contributing factor to the evilness of blood sacrifice. All the other methods of tapping into PPE are not evil because they do not involve hideous acts of evil.

Good, selfish, and evil characters have no qualms with tapping PPE. Good and selfish characters do have qualms with murder, however.

Now animals.
The coverage by the text is far less complete and far more vague than with humans. The inconsistency is not addressed by the rules. There is no sufficient explanation why a selfish aligned character can participate in evil ceremonial magic when the victim is an animal and not become evil. So we are left to find an explanation on our own. Whatever explanation we come up with lacks conclusive support in the text - the text contradicts itself.

One explanation is that PPE is the significant factor.

Could there be another explanation for blood sacrifice of animals where PPE is not the significant factor? Probably.

PPE does not care if it is coursing through a dog or a king. PPE does not care if you sacrifice an animal or a human. It is just PPE. It does not judge. It is cosmic energy that binds things together; it has no concept of anything. People, on the other hand, judge. Good alignments judge blood sacrifice of animals in such a way that they will not participate in it. Selfish and evil characters judge differently.

I might be wrong, but I don't think I'm being unreasonable.

[lather]

Without drawing the PPE, it's just an attempted sacrifice.

This touches on the foundation of my position. The sacrifice is the killing.
The mage sacrifices to enable himself to exploit the doubling of PPE that naturally occurs when a human or an animal dies.
Actually exploiting the doubling or not determines if the sacrifice was a success or a failure, not merely an attempt.

[Killer Cyborg]

Without drawing the PPE, it's just an attempted sacrifice.

This touches on the foundation of my position. The sacrifice is the killing.
The mage sacrifices to enable himself to exploit the doubling of PPE that naturally occurs when a human or an animal dies.
Actually exploiting the doubling or not determines if the sacrifice was a success or a failure, not merely an attempt.

Right.
But there's nothing to indicate that attempted sacrifice would result in an alignment drop.

Also, why would intending to sacrifice an animal for PPE be an evil act when intending to sacrifice an animal for a God, or intending to kill one for food, is NOT?

[lather]

Which means that the rest of you should get on board and change your views.

I'll change mine if you can demonstrate my conclusions are unreasonable.

[lather]

Without drawing the PPE, it's just an attempted sacrifice.

This touches on the foundation of my position. The sacrifice is the killing.
The mage sacrifices to enable himself to exploit the doubling of PPE that naturally occurs when a human or an animal dies.
Actually exploiting the doubling or not determines if the sacrifice was a success or a failure, not merely an attempt.

Right.
But there's nothing to indicate that attempted sacrifice would result in an alignment drop.

If a good aligned character participates in a blood sacrifice in any way, alignment goes to evil. That means showing up, if you ask me.
We need to clearly define "attempted".

Also, why would intending to sacrifice an animal for PPE be an evil act when intending to sacrifice an animal for a God, or intending to kill one for food, is NOT?

PPE might be the significant factor.

The human factor might be the significant factor.

I think both are reasonable conclusions. I just happen to like mine more.

[Killer Cyborg]

Which means that the rest of you should get on board and change your views.

I'll change mine if you can demonstrate my conclusions are unreasonable.

I think I keep doing that, actually.

Apparently, you disagree.

[lather]

Which means that the rest of you should get on board and change your views.

I'll change mine if you can demonstrate my conclusions are unreasonable.

I think I keep doing that, actually.

Apparently, you disagree.

Other than telling me I am unreasonable, I have not seen any demonstrations that I am unreasonable.

If you think otherwise, tell me how you have demonstrated it.

The book is so impossibly contradicting on blood sacrifice of animals as to be worthless support for any position - in my opinion. After all, the book says it is evil yet non-evil characters can do it without becoming evil. I do not understand how any position can claim superiority over another based on this monumental contradiction.

Regarding humans. Good and selfish aligned characters go to evil if they murder. Period. End of discussion. Where is PPE anywhere in that? It's not. I fail to see how that's being unreasonable.

[Killer Cyborg]

Which means that the rest of you should get on board and change your views.

I'll change mine if you can demonstrate my conclusions are unreasonable.

I think I keep doing that, actually.

Apparently, you disagree.

Other than telling me I am unreasonable, I have not seen any demonstrations that I am unreasonable.

If you think otherwise, tell me how you have demonstrated it.

I keep pointing out that PPE is the only difference between killing an animal for PPE and killing an animal for any other reason.
Since killing an animal for any other reason (other than just for fun, perhaps) is not evil, then the PPE is the factor.

The book is so impossibly contradicting on blood sacrifice of animals as to be worthless support for any position - in my opinion. After all, the book says it is evil yet non-evil characters can do it without becoming evil. I do not understand how any position can claim superiority over another based on this monumental contradiction.

You talking about Dragons & Gods?
I'll look that book over when I get home.

What page does it talk about it on?

Regarding humans. Good and selfish aligned characters go to evil if they murder. Period. End of discussion. Where is PPE anywhere in that? It's not. I fail to see how that's being unreasonable.

Because you're not looking at the context.
Yes, murder is wrong.
Murdering a person for PPE is wrong.
Murdering a person to eat them is wrong.
Because murder is wrong.

BUT killing an animal is not murder.
Killing an animal to eat it is NOT wrong.
Killing an animal for PPE is wrong.
THAT is where the PPE comes in, and as soon as draining the PPE is a factor, then suddenly a normally non-evil action becomes an evil action.