I'm not clear if this is meant to be using the Second Edition Requiem rules or not.
I don't really get the significance of Humanity to the equation, since that doesn't innately alter feeding options. Is it supposed to be an inference of the motivation? That a higher Humanity vampire would be assumed to be more motivated to find a source of sustenance besides humans?
We've got rules for feeding on animals and rules for feeding on human blood that has been stored or otherwise not taken fresh from the living, but not quite an intersection between them. However, given that both of those work on a principle of the blood being a far less potent meal, I think it would be reasonable to assume that animal blood not taken fresh is totally worthless, so a butcher is of no use. Your alternative is, well, a full cow is worth maybe about four Vitae, so you could drain it to death to sustain yourself for four nights without intense Discipline activity or similar power use. Cows dropping dead repeatedly over the course of days is the kind of thing that will be noted by the people with a financial stake in them (plus, well, you're damaging somebody's livelihood). Hell, not even feeding on the cows until they're dead is the kind of thing that will cause some suspicion, modern farmers keep careful track of the health of their livestock.
The idea of Embracing another vampire for the purposes of feeding them... well first off, I'm pretty sure that torpid vampires can't feed in the first place, so the idea of keeping them in place indefinitely with a stake won't help (I have to think it is consistent with all portrayals in these games that blood becoming Vitae requires some actual act of consumption, so you couldn't just mainline it into the torpid body). But even if it did work, how does it help at all, if you're not at the high enough Blood Potency that you can only feed upon vampire blood? The statement there was "if humanity is not a concern" not "if you're required to feed on vampires", so this seems to be proposed as something a character chooses to do. But they're pinning another person in place in order to convert the same amount of animal blood that they could feed on directly into Vitae?
Okay, I guess there is a matter of how animal blood is supposed to be a bit less palatable in addition to the fact that it doesn't convert as readily into Vitae as fresh human blood. In that case, the main reason to not be doing it is probably because you'll be addicting yourself to Vitae and blood bonding yourself to your erstwhile victim. Going by the mechanics, there's nothing to strictly prevent somebody from keeping their regnant trapped in such a manner, and in a messed up way it's compatible with the descriptions of what the experience of being bonded is like, but I'd definitely say that it qualifies as the kind of harm that causes Humanity breaking points. You could take a bane against that, but I think it would be reasonable for such a one to be pretty messed up.
I don't really get the significance of Humanity to the equation, since that doesn't innately alter feeding options. Is it supposed to be an inference of the motivation? That a higher Humanity vampire would be assumed to be more motivated to find a source of sustenance besides humans?
We've got rules for feeding on animals and rules for feeding on human blood that has been stored or otherwise not taken fresh from the living, but not quite an intersection between them. However, given that both of those work on a principle of the blood being a far less potent meal, I think it would be reasonable to assume that animal blood not taken fresh is totally worthless, so a butcher is of no use. Your alternative is, well, a full cow is worth maybe about four Vitae, so you could drain it to death to sustain yourself for four nights without intense Discipline activity or similar power use. Cows dropping dead repeatedly over the course of days is the kind of thing that will be noted by the people with a financial stake in them (plus, well, you're damaging somebody's livelihood). Hell, not even feeding on the cows until they're dead is the kind of thing that will cause some suspicion, modern farmers keep careful track of the health of their livestock.
The idea of Embracing another vampire for the purposes of feeding them... well first off, I'm pretty sure that torpid vampires can't feed in the first place, so the idea of keeping them in place indefinitely with a stake won't help (I have to think it is consistent with all portrayals in these games that blood becoming Vitae requires some actual act of consumption, so you couldn't just mainline it into the torpid body). But even if it did work, how does it help at all, if you're not at the high enough Blood Potency that you can only feed upon vampire blood? The statement there was "if humanity is not a concern" not "if you're required to feed on vampires", so this seems to be proposed as something a character chooses to do. But they're pinning another person in place in order to convert the same amount of animal blood that they could feed on directly into Vitae?
Okay, I guess there is a matter of how animal blood is supposed to be a bit less palatable in addition to the fact that it doesn't convert as readily into Vitae as fresh human blood. In that case, the main reason to not be doing it is probably because you'll be addicting yourself to Vitae and blood bonding yourself to your erstwhile victim. Going by the mechanics, there's nothing to strictly prevent somebody from keeping their regnant trapped in such a manner, and in a messed up way it's compatible with the descriptions of what the experience of being bonded is like, but I'd definitely say that it qualifies as the kind of harm that causes Humanity breaking points. You could take a bane against that, but I think it would be reasonable for such a one to be pretty messed up.
Comment