Vampyrism: Donorship is Preposterous
The majority of the “vampyric community” operates under the guidelines of moralistic doctrine referred to as the Black Veil, and are thus hesitant to predate upon a mortal without expressed permission. This leads them to pursue donors—individuals with a basic comprehension of vampyrism who willingly give of themselves unto the vampyre.
In Liber Nosferatu, it is stated that a vampyre who feeds upon strangers is a “parasite,” and the reader is instructed not to feed without consent.
By following such nonsense and seeking out donors, the witch does much more damage than she otherwise would. Most non-moralistic vampyres feed briefly upon various different passers by or deeply on a particularly appetizing one of the same. While a deep feed will result in fatigue and irritability, and can result in fainting, illness, and bruising or irritation of the skin if pursued to the extremes, even deeply feeding on a stranger is preferable to feeding upon a donor.
After all, the kind of person who would volunteer for donation is clearly a kind and caring friend. If the vampyre must select a person to incur detriment, the well-being of a loved one should outvalues the well-being of a stranger. A friend should be afforded a varying degree of loyalty and good wishes and it is errant to treat them like an ash tray.
Moreover, the donor would necessarily be fed upon routinely. Why would the witch want to detriment a loved one regularly instead of causing multiple unimportant people, people to whom she owes no loyalty, enervation once or twice in the course of their lives?
Being regularly penetrated by tendrils weakens the aura of the target and creates permanent weak spots therein. It could even force the donor to take on the vampyric appetite, albeit temporarily.
Psychic vampyres incur certain degrees of stigma amongst certain elements of the Satanist scene, particularly those influenced by LaVeyan or Setian philosophy. It is clear that this stigma rightly belongs to unawakened vampyres, whose Hunger inclines them to histrionic behaviors and the routine enervation of whomever they fraternize with.
Routinely feeding upon the same individuals, whether one is awakened or not, is far more parasitic than what is recommended in these texts.
-V.K. Jehannum
In Liber Nosferatu, it is stated that a vampyre who feeds upon strangers is a “parasite,” and the reader is instructed not to feed without consent.
By following such nonsense and seeking out donors, the witch does much more damage than she otherwise would. Most non-moralistic vampyres feed briefly upon various different passers by or deeply on a particularly appetizing one of the same. While a deep feed will result in fatigue and irritability, and can result in fainting, illness, and bruising or irritation of the skin if pursued to the extremes, even deeply feeding on a stranger is preferable to feeding upon a donor.
After all, the kind of person who would volunteer for donation is clearly a kind and caring friend. If the vampyre must select a person to incur detriment, the well-being of a loved one should outvalues the well-being of a stranger. A friend should be afforded a varying degree of loyalty and good wishes and it is errant to treat them like an ash tray.
Moreover, the donor would necessarily be fed upon routinely. Why would the witch want to detriment a loved one regularly instead of causing multiple unimportant people, people to whom she owes no loyalty, enervation once or twice in the course of their lives?
Being regularly penetrated by tendrils weakens the aura of the target and creates permanent weak spots therein. It could even force the donor to take on the vampyric appetite, albeit temporarily.
Psychic vampyres incur certain degrees of stigma amongst certain elements of the Satanist scene, particularly those influenced by LaVeyan or Setian philosophy. It is clear that this stigma rightly belongs to unawakened vampyres, whose Hunger inclines them to histrionic behaviors and the routine enervation of whomever they fraternize with.
Routinely feeding upon the same individuals, whether one is awakened or not, is far more parasitic than what is recommended in these texts.
-V.K. Jehannum
In my time which is the old way mind u you have to feed not on loved ones as in wives daughters sons or any of the blood line its feeding on your selves it does no good so yes feeding on passerby's is not good due to viruses we know not of but but Donors are good for not making the higher ones want u dead so I'm for Donors yes I have had one or three for many years and yes my wife approves of it.
ReplyDelete[…] Source: Vampyrism: Donorship is Preposterous […]
ReplyDeleteU no , in my time we were not so lazy . Lol was the beginning of that button we spelled you out.
ReplyDeleteI've had a lot of donors over 3 decades, and this guys a joke.
If you intend to be with someone it's best they take care of your needs.
D, ,
Um I'd rather prey off of a regular donor that I can trust, that is near and dear too me that I don't have to worry about them bringing back anything that will harm me in the process.
ReplyDeleteVampyrism can be of need when the vampire learns to utilize disease-energy etc. Accidently feeding a sorcerer can lead to massive sickness of the vampire as the sorcerer starts to poison his own blood and fixing the tentacles of the vampire, tracing him back.
ReplyDelete