On sacrifice

My notes concerning skills for the warlock class do not, unfortunately, include a link to an idea I’ve stolen from Monsters & Manuals. With apologies to noisms, I have to rely entirely on memory. The original content was rules for including sacrifice in your game. Specifically, it was a collection of NPC classes that could benefit from ritual sacrifice, along the lines of bonuses to combat or the ability to assume a victim’s appearance (and maybe some of his skills). It was something that I kept to the side, knowing that I would come back to it one day, and just this week I’ve had a moment of inspiration.

Sacrifice, as a concept for a set of game rules, requires that the player legitimately put himself at risk by giving up something of value for the promise of receiving something else of greater value.

I received a copy of Norse Mythology for Christmas ~ okay, yes, I bought it for my wife but it was really for myself; this is what happens when you’re the primary buyer in the house ~ and although I’ve only read a couple chapters, my head is literally swimming with ideas. It’s odd because Gaiman’s writing isn’t exactly detailed or elaborate. Instead, it’s as though he’s intentionally relying on his audience’s existing knowledge of and familiarity with the source material.

Regardless, one of the first things that stood out to me was the means by which Odin obtained his knowledge and wisdom: he hung himself on a branch of the world tree for eight days and eight nights, until knowledge of the runes was revealed to him on the ninth day; and he cut out his own eye in exchange for a draft from Mimsbrunnr’s well.

Setting aside the parallels to Christian writings ~ our understanding of Norse mythology is almost entirely dictated by what written accounts survived into the modern day, and those were composed after Christianity had come to the North Germanic peoples ~ this thought came to mind upon reading that story: how difficult must it have been to put himself through such torture? What sort of fortitude must a person possess to cut out his own eye?

Like, you can find stories online about people who have gotten themselves into weird situations (NSFW, fyi) and usually, once the pain starts, they tend to do what they can to get out of it. Even if pain is your “thing,” for most people, there’s a very real limit. Hanging from a tree for eight days and nights, with a spear sticking in your side, without food and (presumably) water, is a sure way to die, let alone achieve a mental state that borders on insanity. In other words, it can’t be easy to go through with it.

Yes, I realize we’re talking about gods . . . but what if we’re not? Pain can induce altered states of mind because the body’s natural reaction is to produce hormones and physiological changes that help you push through the pain. The altered state comes about from prolonged exposure to these chemicals. It’s partly why so many cultures in our world have traditions and rituals involving self-inflicted (and somewhat controlled) injury.

There’s potential here. A player might choose to intentionally subject himself to something that could very well kill him, in exchange for the chance to achieve some insight or goal ~ because that’s what already happens in the game! The player do this every time they get into a fight with something that stands a chance of killing them. They do it every time they sneak into a dungeon, intent on plundering its riches. It happens whenever the PCs piss off an NPC with influence and powerful friends. It is, in short, the very nature of the game (one of several, anyway).

This is just one aspect we can bring to a game about sacrifice. Consider the sacrifices the Aztecs (and other Mesoamerican and South American cultures) made: they were done for the general religious purpose of sustaining the gods ~ and we might argue for other reasons such as maintaining social power structures or managing overpopulation ~ but we can easily assign all sorts of benefits to the act, which would compel people in our world to perform sacrifices (and make the PCs’ lives that much more complex). They could change weather patterns, influence the growth of crops, protect against disease, alter the course of a battle, and so on.

Of course, we should ask the question, “Why would anyone continue to use sacrificial magic (for that’s what it is) if a more reliable, less violent and less disruptive option exists?” Which is fair. Divine and arcane magic, while no means pervasive in the world, are both capable of significantly affecting the course of . . . well, anything. And it stands to reason that people in positions of power are going to employ standard magic as a means of maintaining (and increasing) their power. This assumes that sacrificial magic is less reliable . . .

I think we should take a moment to back up and address this issue from a perspective of philosophy: in the grand scheme of things, which came first? I would argue that sacrificial magic is rooted in the idea that you cannot get something for nothing. The sacrifice is a quid pro quo arrangement with an outside power or force. I give up something that is important to me and you give me something in return. Who “you” is, would have been difficult to define in the early days, before magic split into the arcane and the divine, before it was something more coherent and cohesive. Indeed, I think I’ve just talked myself into the understanding that sacrificial magic is a form of wild magic.

Thus, the risk inherent in the act: giving up something of value ~ wealth, food, land, family, etc. ~ does not guarantee a return on your investment. It does not result in an assured benefit. There is a chance that the sacrifice fails completely. But if it doesn’t, then you get more than you lost.

Ah, but that’s the trick, isn’t it? The act has to have meaning. You have to actually give up something of worth to you. For example, while I love the idea of a ritual that kills an innocent and grants the recipient a bonus (like assuming the shape or form of the victim), if the object of the sacrifice holds no meaning for the recipient, then the sacrifice should have a greater chance of failing.

This means I can create a framework for the warlock’s skill. At the amateur level, we might have something like “blood sacrifice,” where the character can draw blood from a willing participant and (if successful) grant them a bonus in combat, either to attack rolls or saving throws. The character has to lose hit points in exchange for a bonus akin to certain magic spells. The effect would only last for a day, at the most, because of how healing works; and the target cannot benefit from healing magic while the bonus is in effect.

At the authority level and above, we can up the requirements. Animal sacrifices can benefit people by affecting weather and the results of harvests, but only if the animals were of value to the persons making the sacrifice (i.e. they are put at some disadvantage by thinning their herds). Expert skill grants access to human sacrifice and the same principles apply.

Of course, I’ve no answer for the mechanic that determines success or failure, but I can address that at a later time. For the moment it’s sufficient to know that I’ve identified enough benefits and a framework to make the skill viable.