Well if they go by the V:TMB model then this is exactly how it will be.

So...I guess I already solved my moral conundrum.


I must kill to feed. I must feed to live. I swore not to kill.


Then, I'll just die.


Problem solved.

I hope it is. Otherwise there will be no point in any risk or reward when the dying street rat rewards just as much as the nobleman.


Speaking of rat, I wonder if animal feeding will be possible? I mean it could and should be the bottom of the totem poll in feeding value but it could offer solutions to tight situations.


Shortest playthrough ever. Would make for an interesting challenge run though. Beat the game before you starve to death.

I don't think they'll go the route of richer the person, better the blood. Seems like they're working more off of the morality of killing. Do you kill a person who will be missed? Or do you kill someone who is already on their way out?

Would you feed on say, a werewolf and or animals if there were no adverse effects? Perhaps feed on other vampires?

"Hahaha! Ya rat svcker!"- Smiling Jack

But what if the system was deeper than that? Say they did go off a system like I suggested (richer doesn't necessarily mean healthier btw, in that time period though it was common). You can feed off the business owner who is well off or you can feed off 3 sick slum dwellers. Well if you kill the business owner you only killed 1 person, but his business could fall apart and put 20 people on the streets who would likely become ill from the flu. So you can either kill 3 or kill 1 but have the chance of destroying more lives in doing so.