Who decided on how the sacrifices were to be killed?
Moderator: Moderators
- Koshercrackers
- Cafe5to2 Waitress
- Posts: 183
- Joined: 08 Apr 2009
- Location: In the BUGHOUSE.
yeah i think so. because when you first get back home alex's mom says "you've been gone too long." i took that as meaning they had missed the time frame to do the sacrifice, which in the long run ends up being whyLostkitsune wrote:I have to wonder if the sacrifices must be killed within a certain time period, like on a proper day, within a week etc.....
PRIME_BBCODE_SPOILER_SHOW PRIME_BBCODE_SPOILER:
the order steps in to take care of everything and trying to save their sorry asses
It's a world of someone's nightmarish dillusions come to life.
- cedar grove
- Just Passing Through
- Posts: 95
- Joined: 31 May 2009
- Location: bottom of toluca lake
if the whole date/time thing had to be correct and it was to fargone fo alex to be sacrificed(and make the town normal again) The why sacrifice him they could leave/live with the town for 50 years then sacrifices alexs kid(if he has one) and make the town normal again. or maby there is only a certain amount of sacrifices needed and alex was the last one(the concrete where alex was suposed to be brought after the sacrifice, all the name slots are full. Also i always thought it was the same date as the 50th anaversery parade there is a banner and a flyer posted to the wall near dr.fitches oficce.
what does no man want, but dosent want to lose either?
a lawsuit.
a lawsuit.
lol, good question, and my version goes like:
Yeah, that's an interesting drinking quote, funny to the game. Here's my original post:
http://www.memoryofalessa.net/read.php?tid=270[/spoiler]
PRIME_BBCODE_SPOILER_SHOW PRIME_BBCODE_SPOILER:
The first glass for thirst, the second for nourishment, the third for pleasure, and the fourth for madness.
http://www.memoryofalessa.net/read.php?tid=270[/spoiler]
寂静岭、サイレントヒル、Silent Hill
(This feels a bit late, but) in Homecoming, isn't Mayor Bartlett found drunk a lot?Arsonist wrote:The Shepherd thing doesn't make any sense though. Isaak Shepherd was a Mayor. So why the drowning?
This may not be related to the Shepherds' background at all, but that just kind of stuck out to me that Issak Shepherd was a mayor and started the drowning ritual and that, even in the Homecoming widget with Elle's diary, it's mentioned that Mayor Bartlett drinks a lot. I mean, this only popped into my head because I was listening to Alex's Theme earlier ("I drank your sacred water..."/"The answer is drowning...")
Anyway, just a thought.
Yo.
- AuraTwilight
- Historical Society Historian
- Posts: 11390
- Joined: 01 Aug 2006
- Location: I'm here, and waiting for you
- Contact:
It doesn't work that way. Alex was supposed to be the sacrifice this time, but it got screwed up. Now they can't kill Alex there wouldn't be any more Shepherds to do the ritual next time. They can't just SKIP a sacrifice and say "Sorry, we'll do it next time, God."if the whole date/time thing had to be correct and it was to fargone fo alex to be sacrificed(and make the town normal again) The why sacrifice him they could leave/live with the town for 50 years then sacrifices alexs kid(if he has one) and make the town normal again. or maby there is only a certain amount of sacrifices needed and alex was the last one(the concrete where alex was suposed to be brought after the sacrifice, all the name slots are full. Also i always thought it was the same date as the 50th anaversery parade there is a banner and a flyer posted to the wall near dr.fitches oficce.
[quote="BlackFire2"]I thought he meant the special powers of her vagina.[/quote]
- cedar grove
- Just Passing Through
- Posts: 95
- Joined: 31 May 2009
- Location: bottom of toluca lake
- AuraTwilight
- Historical Society Historian
- Posts: 11390
- Joined: 01 Aug 2006
- Location: I'm here, and waiting for you
- Contact:
-
- My Bestsellers Clerk
- Posts: 363
- Joined: 12 May 2009
- Gender: Male
- Location: Singapore
I lol'd at that.AuraTwilight wrote:They can't just SKIP a sacrifice and say "Sorry, we'll do it next time, God."
it reminded me of a certain show, that had a line something like this;
"Guess God hates rule breakers..."
or something similar to that.
Back to the question, I think that the first generation of Shepherd's Glen was the one who decided on everything.
- PrescitedEntity
- Brookhaven Receptionist
- Posts: 775
- Joined: 29 Oct 2008
I thought it was either because of Joshua's death and some kind of ramifications there, or because they were shocked into inaction, then missed some deadline? I mean, if it's between hellish town now or hellish town fifty years later, wouldn't there still be reason for them to choose the latter and kill Alex?AuraTwilight wrote: It doesn't work that way. Alex was supposed to be the sacrifice this time, but it got screwed up. Now they can't kill Alex there wouldn't be any more Shepherds to do the ritual next time. They can't just SKIP a sacrifice and say "Sorry, we'll do it next time, God."
I just kind of thought that they just went with whichever child is expendable. Like, if there's an older sister and a little sister, the older sister would be killed. Or if there is an older brother and a little sister, the little sister would be killed. In the case of two boys, it's the first born.
Yo.
-
- My Bestsellers Clerk
- Posts: 363
- Joined: 12 May 2009
- Gender: Male
- Location: Singapore
Yeah, That sounds logical.SilentOne wrote:I just kind of thought that they just went with whichever child is expendable. Like, if there's an older sister and a little sister, the older sister would be killed. Or if there is an older brother and a little sister, the little sister would be killed. In the case of two boys, it's the first born.
- AuraTwilight
- Historical Society Historian
- Posts: 11390
- Joined: 01 Aug 2006
- Location: I'm here, and waiting for you
- Contact:
- PrescitedEntity
- Brookhaven Receptionist
- Posts: 775
- Joined: 29 Oct 2008
I can't say I see the logic in killing the older sister over the younger if it's about "expendability", whatever that means when talking about ones own children. I mean, you could make a tenuous statement that they've got traditional views with the older brother/little sister pair, but how does this hold for anything else, like killing the older brother over the younger, as in Alex's case?SilentOne wrote:I just kind of thought that they just went with whichever child is expendable. Like, if there's an older sister and a little sister, the older sister would be killed. Or if there is an older brother and a little sister, the little sister would be killed. In the case of two boys, it's the first born.
Working off that, though, I could see it as being giving up the one that'd traditionally be considered more "precious", since the firstborn son is traditionally considered the next head of household, and the youngest daughter is sometimes seen as the precious little princess... Still doesn't really jive with me, though.
AuraTwilight wrote:Except Nora is Elle's little sister and she was the sacrifice.
Maybe the Judge became emotionally attached to Elle, since Elle was her firstborn. There's also the possibility that the way they choose the sacrifice varies from family-to-family. Plus, I just thought it was more logical for the older to die because, if the youngest is young enough, there is a greater chance of that child not remembering their sibling when they're older. But I'm sure Joshua or Nora would have remembered, considering their ages.PrescitedEntity wrote: I mean, you could make a tenuous statement that they've got traditional views with the older brother/little sister pair, but how does this hold for anything else, like killing the older brother over the younger, as in Alex's case?
Like I said, maybe it varies from family-to-family.
Yo.
- AuraTwilight
- Historical Society Historian
- Posts: 11390
- Joined: 01 Aug 2006
- Location: I'm here, and waiting for you
- Contact:
Or maybe the sacrifice just has to be named at birth, because of the tombstones. You can't raise two children, then right at sacrifice day, decide "Alright, I pick Bobby." Bobby will have to be decided as such at birth, so I'm sure as long as that's met, there's no other formula, method, rules, etc.
[quote="BlackFire2"]I thought he meant the special powers of her vagina.[/quote]
That makes sense to me.AuraTwilight wrote:Or maybe the sacrifice just has to be named at birth, because of the tombstones. You can't raise two children, then right at sacrifice day, decide "Alright, I pick Bobby." Bobby will have to be decided as such at birth, so I'm sure as long as that's met, there's no other formula, method, rules, etc.
Yo.
- PrescitedEntity
- Brookhaven Receptionist
- Posts: 775
- Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Seems more likely than anything else. The one thing that makes me wonder is why anyone would choose, at birth, the elder of the two. Not that the firstborn should have any greater place in his/her parents' hearts, but it seems odd to look at your then only child and choose to sacrifice that one. Maybe that's just me, though.AuraTwilight wrote:Or maybe the sacrifice just has to be named at birth, because of the tombstones. You can't raise two children, then right at sacrifice day, decide "Alright, I pick Bobby." Bobby will have to be decided as such at birth, so I'm sure as long as that's met, there's no other formula, method, rules, etc.
- AuraTwilight
- Historical Society Historian
- Posts: 11390
- Joined: 01 Aug 2006
- Location: I'm here, and waiting for you
- Contact:
- cedar grove
- Just Passing Through
- Posts: 95
- Joined: 31 May 2009
- Location: bottom of toluca lake