Morality Scaling of a Bloodbank

Hey folks, I’ve been thinking about a question of morality in vampire fiction:

Is treating humans as a blood bank inherently immoral?

I’ve found three examples that seem to occupy different points on that spectrum:

1. The Witcher 3 — Orianna [Night to Remember Trailer]

Orianna is a vampire who runs an orphanage and takes care of the children there. She feeds on them periodically, but doesn’t simply slaughter them for food. From her perspective, she provides them with food, shelter, and protection while taking blood from them as a sustainable food source. The alternative is there would be no orphanage, and thus the children are worse off(?)

2. The Blood of Dawnwalker — the blood tax (If I got this wrong, i apologize I haven't played it I just based it on the previews I saw)

In The Blood of Dawnwalker, Brencis establishes a blood tax after curing the plague with vampire blood. Humans are required to provide blood, while the vampire regime removes the old taxes and obligations and provides protection/cures in return. The arrangement is obviously coercive, and the “tax” ultimately has a much darker side because the weak and infirm can be killed at the blood gatherings.

3. Terry Pratchett’s Carpe Jugulum (Apologies, I've read it so long ago if the words are inaccurate I'm blaming it on memory and research)

Nanny Weatherwax explains how the old-fashioned vampire/human relationship worked:

“Being killed’s nothing to a vampire,” said Nanny. “They always find a way of coming back. Everyone knows that, who knows anything about vampires. If they’re not too hard to kill and it’s all a bit of an adventure for people, well, like as not they’ll just stake him or chuck him in the river and go home. Then he has a nice restful decade or so, bein’ dead, and comes back from the grave and away he goes again. That way he never gets totally wiped out and the lads of the village get some healthy exercise.”

What I find interesting is that Pratchett presents this old-school predator/prey relationship as having a strange degree of mutual agency.

The vampire hunts people. The people know what the vampire is doing. They can resist, hunt him down, and stake him. The vampire eventually comes back and the cycle begins again.

The new vampires, however, consider this primitive. They introduce a supposedly more civilized system where humans provide blood on an organized basis. There is no need for the vampire to hunt people and no need for the villagers to fight the vampire.

And yet Pratchett seems to suggest that something morally important has been lost.

The old system is violent, but both sides retain agency. The vampire is a predator and the human is prey, but the prey can fight back.

The new system is much more efficient and arguably causes less immediate physical harm, but humans are effectively converted into a managed resource.

TBH I wonder if Terry Pratchett was arguing against taxes in using the vampires as an analogy.

That makes me wonder are blood banks moral or immoral?

Orianna from the Witcher 3