The Vampyre is the consummate predator.
By adapting to a diet of more highly concentrated energy, the Vampyre gains more power to draw from in times of plenty. As with the cat, the eagle, the dolphin -- all pure carnivores hold the birthright of greater power than their prey, by making their prey do the work for them of collecting scattered energy from the world.
The Vampyres of lore and yore are set apart from the populace not from their occasional consumption of human energy, but from their lifestyle's dependence upon it. If a "predator" should see no change in their life -- no lessening of power -- if they
ceased to prey on others, can they be called a successful Vampyre at all? I say they cannot.
If a rational person gleans no benefit whatsoever from an act or its consequences, how can they justify engaging in that act? Classical "selfless" acts are ultimately big-picture selfishness, after all: Philanthropes envisage the whole world they most desire to live in, and then turn every means at their disposal toward realizing that end. Martyrs maintain that their own death is more appealing than the torture of remaining in a world that disagrees with their cause. So, no reasonable individual should abide by Vampyristic principles if those actions do not produce the outcomes that they wish to see.
So the Vampyre is set apart, not solely because they know how to Feed on others, but because the exercise of that capacity is become an integral component of their lifestyle. If merely knowing how to Feed was sufficient to qualify one as a true Vampyre, every self-styled "Vampyre Hunter" would become one of their own quarry in the moment that they learned the nature of the acts that they so fear.
That Necessity lies at the heart of true Vampyrism. That Reliance -- that choice to step confidently into all the benefits of a set of needs that can only be fulfilled through regular Feeding -- sets the Vampyre apart from any other dabbler in the same knowledge and arts. The Pride of selecting a lifestyle which can only be upheld through frequent, consistent Success in Feeding shows the absolute confidence of a Vampire in their ability to attain such ends.
So, why do only a chosen few pursue Vampyrism to its full potential? With the benefits available, why wouldn't everybody who discovers it say "Yes, this is the path for me"? The answer might be called cowardice, might be called caution. It has no perfect term; perhaps the closest might be the look in the eye of the bear who, foraging for berries, spots a starving cat during a year when the area's prey population has been decimated by some disease.
Predation for nourishment that can be had no other way is a game with the highest stakes. If a Vampyre encounters circumstances where they cannot Feed when needed, whether through some change in themself or some change in their prey, what happens? In losing the benefits conferred by predation, the individual as a Vampyre ceases to exist. Even if the Body and lower Human self persist, make no mistake -- the Vampyre as the self defined by Feeding starves and dies, if ever that Feeding cease.
To some, such a death of the self may seem trivial -- "Just pick back up as a human and start again!". But to others, especially those enraptured by some Vampyric sects' descriptions of immortality,
any kind of personal death is anathema, and its evasion at any cost is the highest possible calling.
The appeal of Vampyrism could be described as a matter of Temperament, then. The question of whether the benefits outweigh the drawbacks – whether the level of power available via Vampyrism is better had through it than any other way – has no universal answer, since the very nature of a “benefit” is tied so intimately to an individual’s private values and goals.
Temperaments at the extrema – the obligate carnivore Pure Vampyre; the psychic veganism of some sects on the RHP – are easy to define and quantify. Less straightforward to pin down is the vast middle ground between those absolutes. That realm of moderation may seem easy to dismiss as the sole territory of the uninitiated who mindlessly inhabit it as a default position due to knowing no other way, but banishing a belief’s potential solely for its capacity to be feigned by unworthy imitators is a sure way to miss many opportunities for power. Paths within that realm can be chosen just as carefully and consciously as those at either extreme.
I call the chosen paths of this middle ground Psychic Omnivory, to convey an adaptability and capacity to function equally well feeding upon both prey itself and that prey’s nourishment. Just as some narcissistic personalities can unwittingly and destructively meet many of the qualifications for Vampyrism, most who behave like Psychic Omnivores are simply opportunists with very little awareness of or conscious decision making about what energy they consume. And Omnivores can benefit from insight into their ways without necessarily changing them just as surely as inadvertent Vampyres can.
Where do the denizens of this forum fall, in the specturm between Omnivory and Pure Vampyrism? Ought we attempt to categorize techniques to assist those avoiding the metaphorical veggies?
