Is taking blood from a blood bank less ethical than hunting?

[fuzzball6846]

The donation is valid, you generally don't get your money back, and you generally get to keep your charity tax credit.

If a charity is found to have committed actual, legal fraud, you absolutely could sue for your money back. The only reason this might not, realistically, occur is because most charities are very good at pre-establishing the legal fine print.

What was then done with the money is what trips the legality issue. Each step legally speaking is its own entity more or less. If we didn't have this style of legality isolation, you would be put in jail for human rights violations because you paid for a new cell phone that was assembled by underage workers in practically slave labor conditions in a different country.

It’s the stealing needed blood from necessary supplies that is illegal, though. That is the slave labour in this analogy.

Yes, I said legality rather than ethical or morality because laws and ethics are not always the same thing.

True, the ethical question is between assaulting people without their knowledge and stealing live-saving medical supplies.

When you give your blood to a blood bank, you are not kept updated on where your blood goes. Thus your donation and act of giving is completed once the blood leaves your body.

True, but those are the terms and conditions I agreed to when I chose to donate blood. I go to the clinic and consent knowing that my blood will go to hospital patients who need it, regardless of their characteristics.

The blood being stolen by vampires wasn’t part of the initial contract.

As for the morality of the vampire taking it, yes a human may die because the blood wasn't available, but a human may die because the vampire had to hunt.

Also true, but most hospitals have regular blood shortages. The expected mortality rate is higher for stealing than hunting.

Giovanni feeding from humans is not without risk, and just speaking for myself I feel it is far more ethical for a Nagaraja to drop by the morgue for a fresh cadaver and the blood bank for a pint rather than hunting fresher game.

No disagreement for these caveats.

[MyWifeIsScary]

It seems pretty obvious that vampires in VTM are metaphors for the elite. They lie to live, they drink the lifeblood of their lessers, and they belong to the Camarilla, which literally means a chosen group of favourites that surround a leader. The Beast is a Freudian ID that lashes out when it's denied what it wants. When half the people at the table seem to have characters that want to accumulate resources and status and get rich and powerful, it seems the core metaphor of vampire is not lost on people. There's plenty of horror in what players and the NPCs around them end up either doing or experiencing on their quest for more power. Why you would weaken vampires and diminish their drive in favour of some juvenile idea of "personal horror" is beyond me.

[Devidramoth]

Did I miss the part where we decided to pretend kindred don't have a beast to deal with?

Of course bagging is more ethical, that blood is meant to keep sick people alive, as a cainite you're sick and you need blood to keep living. Full circle.

Also every time you bite someone to drink from them, family member, friend, whatever, you risk killing them. Humans can lose about 30% of their blood before you have to start worrying about strokes or hypotension or whatever else. Long term effects of low blood volume can crop up for years afterwards. What if your human already has low blood volume due to a night drinking a few days prior or bad digestion of an undiagnosed minor food allergy. Boom a """safe""" consensual feeding just turned into a mortal risk, and you might not even know until a week or a month later.

Then the actual problem, when you're hungry and you taste or even smell blood you risk frenzy. How many times are you going to play those odds with a 'volunteer' before somebody dies? Bagging is better.

Maybe private bagging from a volunteer would be better still but then...Blackfox's, I think, valid concern, that consent between a cainite and a mortal is inherently fraught for any number of very good reasons.

[Saur Ops Specialist]

Chicago By Night may be your problem, here. Humanity in pre-Revised VtM was two points per freebie spent, and character stats would have likely reflected that, much like how the Gangrel get played up as super-tough tough and able to throw hands with Lupines even though later editions would have the werewolves' agg claws cutting through their mere Fortitude dice of agg soak like a buzzsaw.

[ShovelHeart3]

The tricky thing is that you're fundamentally clashing with the fact that VtM was not (originally, at least) designed for the kind of game you want. The original game concept was heavily influenced by stuff like Anne Rice rather than things like Near Dark; that stuff came later.

I've never seen that film, but if you're implying I want a total edge-fest, let me stop you in your tracks, I don't. All I want is for players and more importantly the source material to moderate it's Humanity with more immersion and thoughtfulness. I remember reading Chicago By Night and getting perturbed by how fundamentally boring it was. High H, low H, mid H, all the characters were just so uninteresting to me because they all seemed too human and familiar, or maybe because they just weren't interesting, but either way, there was such a sense of familiarity that I was disgusted by. It's hard to articulate.

Also, Low Humanity isn't necessarily a downside. It's actually a necessity if you want to pursue a Path of Enlightenment. If Vampires having to worry about conventional human morals bothers you, then good news, there's probably a Path of Enlightenment that at least mostly reflects the values you think are appropriate for a Vampire; if not, you may be able to convince your Storyteller to let you come up with one of your own, as long as it isn't obviously a Path of What I Want To Do Anyways.

I'm a solo player and I have zero interest in POE's. In fact, I find them even more shallow and narrow than the linear Humanity system.

I don't think it's true that the game favours High Humanity, but I do think it's fair to say that it favours a certain amount of principle or discipline. High ratings in Humanity or some other Paths (like Metamorphosis) are associated with potential advantages that come from unlocking transcendental states like Golconda or Azhi Dahaka. Low Humanity is bad when you don't plan to move past it, where you're simply letting the Beast's worst instincts run wild without any counterbalance, though even then plenty of Vampires can make it work for them. Low Humanity requires managing much like High Humanity, just in different ways.

I think I'm speaking from inexperience, so I'll try to get some more under my belt and revaluate.

Saur Ops Specialist Well, high H vampires weren't as favored as I was thinking and that does in fact give me a modicum of personal comfort. That being said, I don't think them having access to advanced Disciplines is justified and I hold to that. But, you're right about the "religious horror" thing. There's too much of the real world in it for my taste and I've never liked the Abrahamic background of VTM, which is obviously a huge chunk of the lore, but I'm appreciative of V5 moving away from this a little. I much prefer spiritual horror, if that makes sense. Anyway, I appreciate you putting up with me. I found it productive in thinking about the game.

[Kharnov]

Are they? Other high H kindred could join them. Conversely, if they're the only vampire in an area with a small population, they have easy feeding, no competition and influence. That solitude works both ways.


This is already done to mid and low H vampires, though - it's called a blood hunt and the higher your H, the less likely there is that one will ever be called against you. Also, what would even be the point if they're not an elder?


No, I conceptually understand the "personal horror" and whatnot, but the immersion doesn't begin and end there. My campaign is for more mechanical immersion.


I'm not well read on Golconda, so I can't speak too much on it, but my initial impression of the concept is negative. Speaking of which, this is the imbalance I'm talking about: low Humanity leads only to rage and self-destruction and high Humanity leads to salvation and contentment. There's no balance and it's all very vapid and narrow minded, like every other dualistic moral philosophy ever invented.

+1 to Asmodai and Saur Ops Specialist on High Humanity not being "easy mode" for Kindred, for so many reasons.

To respond to your specific points:

You are correct that High Humanity Vampires are best off finding an isolated place with an agreeable Herd and avoid other Vampires as much as possible. It's the one upshot from the general disconnection from wider Vampire society that maintaining their High Humanity all but necessitates. But that isolation places limits on your ability to develop your own strength, making you more vulnerable if some kind of Outside Context Problem rolls into your territory.

And High Humanity Vampires are very much a minority, so there isn't a giant pile of them you can call on as allies in a struggle against invaders. And most of them would likely refuse, because getting involved in those kind of spats is precisely the kind of thing that drags your Humanity down.

It's already been hit upon, but the intended use of a Blood Hunt, against wights and breakers of the Traditions, can differ greatly from actual practice, where a Blood Hunt could be called against an innocent High Humanity Vampire who has been framed by a Mid-or-Low Humanity Vampire that can pull all kinds of dirty tricks not available to the High Humanity Vampire in order to set them up. That's assuming a Camarilla city; in Sabbat territory, making the effort to maintain a High Humanity would be all the justification needed to diablerize you.

The tricky thing is that you're fundamentally clashing with the fact that VtM was not (originally, at least) designed for the kind of game you want. The original game concept was heavily influenced by stuff like Anne Rice rather than things like Near Dark; that stuff came later.

Also, Low Humanity isn't necessarily a downside. It's actually a necessity if you want to pursue a Path of Enlightenment. If Vampires having to worry about conventional human morals bothers you, then good news, there's probably a Path of Enlightenment that at least mostly reflects the values you think are appropriate for a Vampire; if not, you may be able to convince your Storyteller to let you come up with one of your own, as long as it isn't obviously a Path of What I Want To Do Anyways.

I don't think it's true that the game favours High Humanity, but I do think it's fair to say that it favours a certain amount of principle or discipline. High ratings in Humanity or some other Paths (like Metamorphosis) are associated with potential advantages that come from unlocking transcendental states like Golconda or Azhi Dahaka. Low Humanity is bad when you don't plan to move past it, where you're simply letting the Beast's worst instincts run wild without any counterbalance, though even then plenty of Vampires can make it work for them. Low Humanity requires managing much like High Humanity, just in different ways.

[Saur Ops Specialist]

Are they? Other high H kindred could join them. Conversely, if they're the only vampire in an area with a small population, they have easy feeding, no competition and influence. That solitude works both ways.

You're still looking at a small fraction versus a large force if someone decides that they want the territory instead.

This is already done to mid and low H vampires, though - it's called a blood hunt and the higher your H, the less likely there is that one will ever be called against you. Also, what would even be the point if they're not an elder?

Not mid - that's the majority of vampire society. Also, societies will organize to destroy whatever it is they think threatens them. If another group of vampires wants in on the high Humanity territory and the result is not what they like? Invasion. If someone's favored childe gets whacked because they went out for a little "fun" in the high Humanity vampire's territory? Turf war. The point is that they get new territory and make an example of a rogue element.

No, I conceptually understand the "personal horror" and whatnot, but the immersion doesn't begin and end there. My campaign is for more mechanical immersion.

Ten guns versus one. Want to take those odds?

I'm not well read on Golconda, so I can't speak too much on it, but my initial impression of the concept is negative. Speaking of which, this is the imbalance I'm talking about: low Humanity leads only to rage and self-destruction and high Humanity leads to salvation and contentment. There's no balance and it's all very vapid and narrow minded, like every other dualistic moral philosophy ever invented.

It is pretty fluid and amorphous as far as mechanics go, but it is still technically a component of the game. Meanwhile, if you're willing to bend a few sensibilities and cut a few corners, you can have more now, get to feel like the big man around, and let no one give you "no" for an answer.

In any case you, like me, might just not like religious horror, and V:tM definitely qualifies as such, especially with the massive pounding on the Noddism drum. That's why this isn't my main game, or even number 10, really.

[Thoth]

Not true. If I donate money to a charity for sick kids, and the charity turns around and uses the funds to buy drugs, then they have acted fraudulently. Both ethically and legally, the original transaction is voided.

While I understand what you are trying to get at, the truth is a bit more complex.

The donation is valid, you generally don't get your money back, and you generally get to keep your charity tax credit. What was then done with the money is what trips the legality issue. Each step legally speaking is its own entity more or less. If we didn't have this style of legality isolation, you would be put in jail for human rights violations because you paid for a new cell phone that was assembled by underage workers in practically slave labor conditions in a different country.

Yes, I said legality rather than ethical or morality because laws and ethics are not always the same thing. It is illegal to use money collected by a charity for the purposes of refurbishing musical instruments to give music lessons to underprivileged children and spend it on helping war orphans escape conflict zones or get medical aid. But I would at least hope that most of us here would agree that despite being illegal, it would be the moral choice of action.

When you give your blood to a blood bank, you are not kept updated on where your blood goes. Thus your donation and act of giving is completed once the blood leaves your body. As for the morality of the vampire taking it, yes a human may die because the blood wasn't available, but a human may die because the vampire had to hunt. Giovanni feeding from humans is not without risk, and just speaking for myself I feel it is far more ethical for a Nagaraja to drop by the morgue for a fresh cadaver and the blood bank for a pint rather than hunting fresher game.

[ShovelHeart3]

The lone warrior-hermit is just that - alone.

Are they? Other high H kindred could join them. Conversely, if they're the only vampire in an area with a small population, they have easy feeding, no competition and influence. That solitude works both ways.

However high they might get their power rating, vampire society as a whole can overwhelm them with masses of the newly embraced, ghouls, or just even mortal forces conditioned by lower gen vampires (grenades and rockets are still dangerous for vampires).

This is already done to mid and low H vampires, though - it's called a blood hunt and the higher your H, the less likely there is that one will ever be called against you. Also, what would even be the point if they're not an elder?

Without any compunctions about dragging more lives into the fight, the mid-low Humanity vampires have a free hand to be just as shitty as humans are in waging unrestricted warfare. That is the immersion that you're missing - the long, exhausting struggle within and without.

No, I conceptually understand the "personal horror" and whatnot, but the immersion doesn't begin and end there. My campaign is for more mechanical immersion.

Also Golconda is a thing in the setting, so there is some kind of some possibility of reward for sticking it out. By and large, you'll be slogging through the mud, but there's always the slim chance that you can break away from the blood and make your own way, at last.

I'm not well read on Golconda, so I can't speak too much on it, but my initial impression of the concept is negative. Speaking of which, this is the imbalance I'm talking about: low Humanity leads only to rage and self-destruction and high Humanity leads to salvation and contentment. There's no balance and it's all very vapid and narrow minded, like every other dualistic moral philosophy ever invented.

[Saur Ops Specialist]

I understand and agree with you, but my point is immersive balance. Hit 0 Humanity and become the Beast. It's an immersive mechanic, even if few ever reach it. Likewise, my point is that a Discipline level cap is also an immersive mechanic that conveys a clear detriment. Because hypothetically, it would be possible to be a warrior-hermit who protects humans and Humanity chasing vampires in some remote cult, but I don't find it immersive that such an individual should theoretically have access to high disciplines, despite rejecting their vampirism at every turn.

The lone warrior-hermit is just that - alone. However high they might get their power rating, vampire society as a whole can overwhelm them with masses of the newly embraced, ghouls, or just even mortal forces conditioned by lower gen vampires (grenades and rockets are still dangerous for vampires). Without any compunctions about dragging more lives into the fight, the mid-low Humanity vampires have a free hand to be just as shitty as humans are in waging unrestricted warfare. That is the immersion that you're missing - the long, exhausting struggle within and without.

Also Golconda is a thing in the setting, so there is some kind of some possibility of reward for sticking it out. By and large, you'll be slogging through the mud, but there's always the slim chance that you can break away from the blood and make your own way, at last.

[ShovelHeart3]

Keeping it is dangerous. Any time you cannot control yourself, you could lose it. Any time you have to use powers, you could lose it. Any time you fight anyone without the express purpose of protecting yourself or others, you could lose it. And gods help you if you injur or kill someone. Feeding without manipulation or violence of any form? You lose it.And getting it back is neither, fun nor easy and easily comes with derangements.

That's before even getting to the point that Vampires are instinctive dicks on a general basis and will do their best to mess you up for being a prude and acting high and mighty above them. You are literally putting a giant target above your head, one that comes with the corollary that you have limitations in what you're willing to do, while they do not. Just hanging out with "normal" vampires is impossible for you, even if they'd qualify as your "allies". Therefore you're not viable as a PC in a group.

I understand and agree with you, but my point is immersive balance. Hit 0 Humanity and become the Beast. It's an immersive mechanic, even if few ever reach it. Likewise, my point is that a Discipline level cap is also an immersive mechanic that conveys a clear detriment. Because hypothetically, it would be possible to be a warrior-hermit who protects humans and Humanity chasing vampires in some remote cult, but I don't find it immersive that such an individual should theoretically have access to high disciplines, despite rejecting their vampirism at every turn.

[Asmodai]

It seems playable to me; it's just a different play style. Like I said, there are far bigger risks playing a low H vampire, but people can and do play that way, so why not have balance at the other end of the spectrum? If losing your Humanity is inherently dangerous, why shouldn't also keeping it be?

Keeping it is dangerous. Any time you cannot control yourself, you could lose it. Any time you have to use powers, you could lose it. Any time you fight anyone without the express purpose of protecting yourself or others, you could lose it. And gods help you if you injur or kill someone. Feeding without manipulation or violence of any form? You lose it.And getting it back is neither, fun nor easy and easily comes with derangements.

That's before even getting to the point that Vampires are instinctive dicks on a general basis and will do their best to mess you up for being a prude and acting high and mighty above them. You are literally putting a giant target above your head, one that comes with the corollary that you have limitations in what you're willing to do, while they do not. Just hanging out with "normal" vampires is impossible for you, even if they'd qualify as your "allies". Therefore you're not viable as a PC in a group.

[ShovelHeart3]

How playable is that in a game, though? You are forced to do things that cannot satisfy your criteria of humanity on a daily basis. Even feeding is deeply problematic, letalone actual survival in a cutthroat society built on oneupmanship and control.

It seems playable to me; it's just a different play style. Like I said, there are far bigger risks playing a low H vampire, but people can and do play that way, so why not have balance at the other end of the spectrum? If losing your Humanity is inherently dangerous, why shouldn't also keeping it be?

[Asmodai]

Asmodai
I get it and it makes sense, but again, my argument stems from balance and immersion. It's far easier to survive as a cloistered monk and there's also the issue of not just perspective, but "practice makes perfect". A high H vamp is going to use their powers much less than a low H and in narrower applications. Take a power like Possession (V5) - hypothetically, if a high H vampire has the reserve to fuel it, how would they grasp a breaking, entering and hijacking of the mind? To me, they do not have the disposition/nature/"right stuff" or abstraction for it.

How playable is that in a game, though? You are forced to do things that cannot satisfy your criteria of humanity on a daily basis. Even feeding is deeply problematic, letalone actual survival in a cutthroat society built on oneupmanship and control.

[fuzzball6846]

Yeah, I know many players view vampires as humans with superpowers and a dietary restriction.

No, that’s even worse. Vampires are fundamentally different creatures with a predatory orientation. That’s what makes it interesting. The more cut off from humanity the better, tbh.


I take VTM vampires as presented. My disagreement is more on principal, I think. On an ethical/philosophical level, I think that kindred meet any reasonable definition of personhood and are, thus, entitled to certain sensibilities.

A vampire, by definition, does not have a "life". It has an "existence", but only as something unnatural and that should not be. It is an ontological evil.

I think this is what I mean. I’m of this opinion that personhood it not a biological characteristic.

Hypothetically, if there were a disease that rendered people functionally dead but still sapient (not vampires btw, just dead), I don’t think anyone could reasonably argue they weren’t still entitled to recognition under the law. That fall fall to something like sentience, sapience, membership to the social contract, etc.

Now this is how I run chronicles as I want the decision of mortal hunters (or anyone else for that matter like the Lupines) to destroy the vampire to always be correct from a metaphysical perspective.

Eh, agree to disagree. I want to be challenged. I prefer it when things are messy and every answer is the wrong one. That scratches the right spot imo.