The only problem with the whole "consume something" concept is that "Crows" are not vampiric/ghoulish type entities. If anything, they are reanimated spirits of vengeance. The only way that I can see the "consuming" angle work is that they regain their "energy" by finding/killing their targets or other evil beings who are attached to their targets. That however, would be limited fare for such a character.

With that being said, according to the overlying tenet of the game (free will vs. nature), a crow could not be a player character for one simple reason; crows are driven by their nature which is the pursuit of vengeance against the person/people who killed them and their loved one/ones. A crow cannot choose not to kill their targets (please forget the stupid television show with Marc Dacasos...I'm talking about the concept according to Barr). Once a crow has slain their target(s), then their time on Earth is done and they have to return to the afterlife.

I allowed a player to play a crow-like character in a WoD game. The problem was that the player became attached to the character and the power and kept trying to put off taking vengeance against her killers. That is the one thing that a crow can't deny; seeking vengeance.

You can do what you want, ultimately; it's your game. But those are my thoughts on the subject. It's up to you and good luck either way with your game, mate!

Well, they could always just drop the Living Dead thing. I mean, the Crow IS living dead, but then, so is RCV kinda. I would just skip that part and give them inhuman recovery and get ta gaming.

They would in my gaming group.  Between a reenactor who fights with live steel who was an army ranger, a medic who did a tour in Iraq, computer tech who is also a competition pistol shooter, a psychologist, a musician, a corrections officer who farms and hunts; we've got quite a few bases covered in my gaming group when it comes to what is or isn't impractical in real life and none of us are shy about calling "Bullsh*t" when something just wouldn't work.  We consider realism important in maintaining our suspension of disbelief.  We'd no more allow a mortal to duel wield pistols at separate targets than we'd allow a mortal to revive someone after an autopsy.

Yeah, I was in 7th Group and you can be damn sure my guy is shooting three pistols at the same time like a crazy juggler. It's a game. If I wanted realism, I'd re-up and head back to Afghanistan.

I mean, I'm standing next to a guy who eats blood and uses it to fuel throwing a car.

Nah. I mean, if Mab, with -30 fate points or whatever, can get a FATE point for ANY reason and use it resist a compel, then that's just bad design that's contrary to the intro stuff about free will and FATE.

No reason to not let my players play -40 refresh characters. They have free will; they just have to do one thing in accordance with their beliefs and then they get their free will back, in the form of a FATE point.

That's silly. I'd go further and say that not only is it a good house rule, but that Evil hat dropped the ball in design terms.

Never let it be said that I don't think I know better than everyone else. 

Yeah, until the NPC buys off his negative, he has no FATE points. If Niccodemus is compel, sure he gets a FATE point. Now he's only 17 in the hole, rather than 18 or whatever.

It's pretty simple. Heavyweights like Mab and such never, never get FATE points. She has no free will at all. She is waht she is. Same with BCV and RCV. They are what they are. They're not resisting they're aspects. Unless maybe they buy them off with a whole lotta compels.

I wrote up a character that was a Dead Like Me style reaper character who had Living Dead. I don't actually think Living Dead is too powerful. You CAN'T recover from consequences, but they (someone with awesome sewing skills) can rebuild you. With Human Guise, it's not only playable, but really fun.

Yeah, one of my players has gone from being a pure mortal pizza delivery boy to the Winter Knight. He'll be getting a High Concept change.

I don't find it silly, don't look at it as being less able, look at it as being less willing to take that punch and still keep fighting.  Imagine a professional boxer, he can take a lot of punishment before he's taken out; now drop on some serious mental stress like one of his kids just being diagnosed with a terminal disease and his wife telling him he's leaving with his other child right as he steps into the ring for a couple of mental/social consequences.  I'm perfectly ok with that boxer being a lot less focused on the fight and being a lot more willing to just give it up a lot sooner than he would otherwise.

Yeah, Tyson won fights through metal and social stress, bot physical. He intimidated fighters and then tagged that to knock them out.

He also lost finally though mental stress rather than being outclassed physically. Makes perfect sense to me.