Who decided on how the sacrifices were to be killed?

[Koshercrackers]

Perhaps he just got first dibsies.

[TANK]

I have to wonder if the sacrifices must be killed within a certain time period, like on a proper day, within a week etc.....

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 why

PRIME_BBCODE_SPOILER_SHOW PRIME_BBCODE_SPOILER:

the order steps in to take care of everything and trying to save their sorry asses

[cedar grove]

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.

[sephirot]

lol, good question, and my version goes like:

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.

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]

[SilentOne]

The Shepherd thing doesn't make any sense though. Isaak Shepherd was a Mayor. So why the drowning?

(This feels a bit late, but) in Homecoming, isn't Mayor Bartlett found drunk a lot?
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.

[AuraTwilight]

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.

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."

[cedar grove]

so shepards glen is going to be stuck in this state for ever?

[AuraTwilight]

Or until the end of the game, when the survivors leave and there's no one left to feed the Otherworld state.

[Restoration01]

They can't just SKIP a sacrifice and say "Sorry, we'll do it next time, God."

I lol'd at that.
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]

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 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?

[SilentOne]

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.

[Restoration01]

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.

Yeah, That sounds logical.

[AuraTwilight]

Except Nora is Elle's little sister and she was the sacrifice.

[PrescitedEntity]

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.

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?

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.

[SilentOne]

Except Nora is Elle's little sister and she was the sacrifice.

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?

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.

Like I said, maybe it varies from family-to-family.

[AuraTwilight]

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.

[SilentOne]

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.

That makes sense to me.

[PrescitedEntity]

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.

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]

Better to have your sacrifice ready than to keep trying and trying and hope the second one's ready by the due date. I get the feeling that the Shepherds had a lot of problems having children.

[cedar grove]

btw after the game (when shepards glen is stuck in the misty state) if anyone else enters it will it be like silent hill( where they face their demons ect)