Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Monomacy rules

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Monomacy rules

    I have read the info I could get my hands on about rules of Monomacy but I'm sure I have missed something. Can you nice people point me to (all?) relevant information about this? One thing especially that I didn't find anywhere but I'm pretty sure I read it somewhere (looking back it probably wasn't canon): "a person being challenged to a duel aka Monomacy can choose to elect a "champion" to fight instead of him/her but the original challenged person loses face/status" or something like that?

  • #2
    From V20, page 509:

    Monomacy
    It is inevitable that, among vampires as headstrong
    and violent as those of the Sabbat, differences of opinion
    occur. While the vast majority of these conflicts
    are handled with all the civility and reason a Sabbat
    can muster, some grievances are so deep as to warrant a
    more serious solution. When two (or more) Sabbat are
    unable to come to a resolution, the ritus of Monomacy
    serves to settle the issue.

    Monomacy is usually practiced by only ranking members
    of packs. Many young Sabbat are too violent and
    hotheaded to recognize the gravity of ritual combat to
    the death, and would resort to it every time a packmate
    took blood from a vessel they decided they liked. As
    such, this ritus is conducted by the Pack Priest (or a
    higher ranking Sabbat, if the challenge is cross-pack),
    to whom a challenge is issued simultaneously with the
    challenge to the rival. The priest then decides whether
    or not the grudge is worth Monomacy, and whether or
    not she chooses to preside over the ritual. Should the
    priest deem the cause worthy, the challenged vampire
    may decline. In theory, there is nothing wrong with
    declining a challenge, but unless the challenger is of
    such little consequence as to be below the challengee’s
    notice, declining usually involves a great loss of face
    (and perhaps an unsanctioned duel afterward).

    The actual practice of Monomacy varies widely —
    no formal code exists as to the choice of weapons, locations,
    or even terms of victory. Most often, Monomacy
    duels are fought to Final Death in some ridiculously
    dangerous or highly inaccessible place like an iron
    foundry or atop a skyscraper. Whether or not the vampires
    may use weapons, Disciplines, or other assets is
    typically the decision of the challenged. On the priest’s
    invocation, the combat begins, and the last vampire
    standing is declared the winner, usually followed by
    other ritae and celebration.

    System: The details of Monomacy are best left to the
    story — troupes should be encouraged to add all the
    pomp and circumstance they wish to the ritus, though
    the exact details differ from pack to pack. The challenger
    decides upon the time and location of the duel.
    The challenged decides whether or not weapons will
    be used and what they will be, as well as any other details
    (until first blood instead of Final Death, no Disciplines,
    participants must wear blindfolds, participants
    must ride the wave of frenzy during the duel, etc.).

    The priest administering the ritus is an adjudicating
    official — the duel begins and ends on her word, and
    it may be aborted at any time. It is even within the
    priest’s power to declare a Monomacy null and void
    after the fact, but the priest who does this to favor her
    own candidate is looked upon with extreme displeasure
    thereafter by other Sabbat.


    I seem to have acquired a site for running play by post games. This is unexpected and frightening and come watch either the glorious play or the magnificent train wreck:

    The Malkavian Madness Network

    Comment


    • #3
      Monomancy can be anything, from a simple brawl to final death to an art competition, depending on the participants and cause of the dispute. It just needs to be absolved wild.

      Like, if it were two Toreador Antribus, they'd probably not duel with weapons (though maybe? Depends on build), but rather compete in terms of an art project. Each particpant has a week. It should be extravagant, in a " human centipede" way.

      Tzmisce might have their szchalata fight as proxies instead. City Gangrel and Assamites might have a deadly game of Assasin.

      If you have a monomancy event in your game, make it count. It shouldnt be a simple duel, because that doesnt do the tradition justice. It has to be grand and crazy, like all things Sabbat.

      Comment


      • #4
        While the Monomacy can take many forms and does not necessarily have to be violent (though they often are), it generally needs to be something which can have a clear and decisive winner. Monomacy isn't just about resolving a dispute, its about establishing dominance.

        Comment


        • #5
          As to the topic of champions, there's no hard and fast rule about it. Its about what you think you can get away with. Challenging someone and then selecting a champion to fight your battle for you is going to make you look like a tool, whereas being the challenged party and selecting a champion doesn't necessarily carry as much loss of face. If you challenge someone who selects a champion and you then want to select a champion yourself that's down to whether you think it will damage your position to do so. If this conflict is a largely personal matter then champions start to look like pettiness and cowardice, whereas if this monomacy is standing in for a larger issue with factions on each side then no one is likely to question champions being brought in to back up the weight of status with muscle. The is also one advantage of holding the position of Bishop or higher, as having a Templar act as your champion is generally considered to be within your purview and won't generally be disputed unless the challenge is of an especially dire or personal nature.

          Comment


          • #6
            Monomacy Updated: Pag 43/45 Rites of the Blood
            Last edited by Joe Kerr; 03-08-2017, 07:44 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Caitiff Primogen View Post
              As to the topic of champions, there's no hard and fast rule about it. Its about what you think you can get away with. Challenging someone and then selecting a champion to fight your battle for you is going to make you look like a tool, whereas being the challenged party and selecting a champion doesn't necessarily carry as much loss of face. If you challenge someone who selects a champion and you then want to select a champion yourself that's down to whether you think it will damage your position to do so. If this conflict is a largely personal matter then champions start to look like pettiness and cowardice, whereas if this monomacy is standing in for a larger issue with factions on each side then no one is likely to question champions being brought in to back up the weight of status with muscle. The is also one advantage of holding the position of Bishop or higher, as having a Templar act as your champion is generally considered to be within your purview and won't generally be disputed unless the challenge is of an especially dire or personal nature.
              This is a really nicely put paragraph and I agree with everything you said only you put it to paper much better then I could. Thank you.


              Originally posted by Joe Kerr View Post
              Monomacy Updated: Pag 43/45 Rites of the Blood
              Thank you for this! I did not know this existed. This helps me a lot.

              Comment


              • #8
                Glad to help

                Comment


                • #9
                  Staring Contest.

                  Sounds easy. But did I forget to mention what we'd be starting at?

                  Points to the glowing, orange horizon

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X