[Rq-rules] House Rule Query

[Tom Cantine]

I LOVE that idea, and no, I don't think it would make divine magic too 
accessible or cheap, provided you adjusted the availability of 
livestock accordingly. Remember that in most semi-realistic ancient or 
medieval settings, animals are rather more valuable than we appreciate. 
Chickens are mainly eaten when they stop laying eggs, and beef is 
largely a by-product of replacing an aging draft-animal. I wouldn't 
even make the animals have to be bought from the temple priest.

I WOULD, however, suggest that an animal cannot be sacrificed 
(successfully) unless it has been properly consecrated to make its POW 
available to the god or goddess. Not all of the POW would come back as 
divine spells; some or even most would just go to the deity as a true 
sacrifice. I'd also make the consecration ritual one which not all 
cults had, as some don't practice sacrifice of this sort at all.

On 9-Feb-08, at 6:11 PM, royce at efn.org wrote:

> Hi, All,
>    I wonder if the following idea for a house rule would be a mistake.
>    Instead of sacrificing POW, a character may sacrifice an animal at 
> the
> temple.  (Said animal must be bought from the temple priests at some
> inflated price, of course.)  Better spells would require a larger, more
> expensive animal -- goat for weaker spells, bull for stronger spells,
> and human sacrifice a possibility for bad guys worshipping disreputable
> gods.  (Ba'al, anyone?)
>    So, would this make divine magic _too_ accessible, _too_ cheap?
>    I am not wedded to the substitution notion, having merely stolen it
> from Classical mythology, so please feel free to shoot it down.
>    Thanks ahead of time for any feedback.
> Asher
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RQ-Rules mailing list
> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com
> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules
>