Yes and no. Parts of Sacrificing resemble Death Magic in ED, but ED lacks blood spirits just as SR lacks certain other aspects of blood magic, like blood oaths. Case in point:

No. ED doesn't have a proper equivalent to Essence (although one may argue that the Depatterning Rating is representative of Essence Loss), and even then rarely inflicts permanent wounds. Most blood magic is temporary damage for a temporary boost--not unlike the Attribute Boost adept power in SR, which gives a short boost but causes the adept to suffer drain.

Blood magic is a matter of serious moral debate among many, especially considering the Blood Elves and the profligate use of blood charms and death magic by Therans. The Lightbearers, however, are the only organization which forswears its use entirely due to the complications and implications of its use.

Correct. Death Magic is the closest to Sacrificing in SR, damaging another metahuman to power or boost a spell.

Many considered blood magic evil, and most agreed that Death Magic was evil. THe actual moral arguements and camps are many and varied, some consider it a necessary evil, while others see it as another source of [pwer.

... and suggest that magic/mana is an aspect of living/dying; and that there is nothing so strongly associated with the realities, the gut-truth-awareness-knowledge of what it means to be alive and not alive as blood. The rest of us, bits and pieces of abstract flesh that in the SR universe is more and more being replaced with bits of metal -- but no matter how metallic we become, the blood still pumps through our veins.

This was evil. It sacrificed people who may or may not have been wholly willing, who had been exploited by the fear-mongering and hate-spreading Daniel Howling Coyote. It was an act that destroyed the very balance of the weather, and the lives of millions.

This too was evil, for it disrupted the natural order of things. Our masters were halted at the Bridge by this vile act.

~J

No, but see references on the appropriate pages.

Nah. Actually, it stems from Earthdawn players, on the old KEEP boards and oter places. Because comparing ED and DnD was paramount to trolling. So to keep the peace, and get in a small jibe, everyone began referring to it as "That Other Game."

I think it is more accurate to state 'a good person given power might still be a good person'.

Just giving a good person power won't change their basic nature.

If you've got someone who's "good" because they don't have the power to be "evil".. then they aren't really a good person. If you've got someone who's "good" just because they don't want to be otherwise? Then they'll stay good. Other circumstances could change it -- but just giving them power, that won't, in and of itself.

That's a huge generalization. The adage 'Power Corrupts' does have a basis in truth. Giving someone power gives them the responsibility to use it, as well as the opportunity. People can change for various reasons, and one of those factors can be power. What I said was that a person 'might' still be good, as opposed to your statement that they 'will' still be good. I stand by that.

Of course, this all assumes that there is such a thing as a truly 'good' person, or even a truly 'evil' person.

I'm actually ignoring everything but power itself specifically Fortune -- I agree that people can change. What I've been trying to say that power ALONE won't corrupt a person. Aggravating factor? Certainly, but not just having power.

I like this way of approaching it -- although I'd add to "don't have ability to demonstrate them", also that maybe they never before had a perceived need for power. When everyone agrees on what the rules should be and follows them because, well, it just is -- what need to enforce them?

Just for the sake of debate, the example I was thinking of -- appropriate, considering the new SW film is soon to open -- was what happened at TheForce.net, with people who came across as regular people who had a passion for what had brought them together: which was fine, so long as the community was small and tight and the social mores were agreed upon by (virtually) everyone.

Then the first of the prequels was released, and membership exploded -- and along with numbers, also in the expectations and mores and even basic demographic shifts with all that goes along with that (where before most had remembered the release of at least one of the original trilogy prior to special edition, probably 90% of the new members were under 20). People everyone had accepted as "good" or "decent" were suddenly placed in the position of having to enforce what had always previously been understood. The reactions among existing admins ranged from tyrannical to lackadaisical to just vanish altogether, as the old cadre of admins tried to enforce the membership's actions in the image of the old social mores -- and failed, and, well, "corrupt" became a very common usage word, and not altogether inaccurately. Membership pressure brought new admins in to help the old ones: trying to deal with what they saw as being "corrupt", they became tyrannical in the opposite direction ... and again the word "corrupt" was flung about. This pattern happened repeatedly.

But here's the interesting thing: not one of the active admins ever did anything that they didn't see as being in the membership's interest. The vast majority of the actions taken was because they were trying to help improve the quality of posting life for everyone. It's important to understand that none of them, even those most singled out as "corrupt" in later months, were the equivalent of "cheats" to begin with.

Coming back to blood magic: I think, by now, that there's no question in any of our minds that what's involved is power. The only question we're really tossing about is the question of how much power is enough (means to an end), what types of power are more acceptable than others (edit: social mores; or moral absolutes?), and what access to such power ends up doing to a person (in the sense of bringing out what's already there). After all, we all have a shadow nature

But all magic, by its very nature, alters the environment around the caster -- and that could easily include the people around the caster. Just look at the way PCs tend to react to other PCs casting mind control spells on them -- and yet no one seriously argues that mind control spells shouldn't be used on NPCs. Is raping a person's most intimate thoughts or twisting a person's emotions somehow more "good" than killing them to power a spell?

And I'm saying that is an inaccurate statement, in that it is a massive generalization. All I am saying is that power alone could corrupt a person, not that it necessarily will.