Ooo big failure of logic on my part. Yeah under the assumption that any meat would sustain them then a healthy diet would essentially sustain the person through their lives. Until their body dies of old age.
I'm not really liking their use of the vampire concept in this. Because to me the vampire stage would be before death, and feeding maintains the immortality. But in this your are already immortal but once your body dies then you have to sustain it on purely the life on others. Which involves eating their bodily composition. At this point you basically become an immortal cannibal which devolves through the various stages of undead.
They don't really clarify the details of the Fampyr stage. "Going through a cannibal stage" Does that mean I'm alive, or seemingly alive because I just died and now I have to sustain myself.
Seems to me you could have had your soulbound 30 years prior and had been living out life as normal. If during that stage you thirsted blood I would understand the fampyr stage, just doesn't make sense to equate the a rigor mortised cannibal as being the same thing though.
I'm happy that Obsidian is trying to buck trends though, because I really like the rest of this conceptual continuum.
