Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

These new Lasombras

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

  • Originally posted by Black Flag View Post

    The real elder vampires tend to engage in the Jyhad on a different level from the neonates and ancillae, often from the shadows. This was established as far back as the original Chicago by Night, where the prince was far from the oldest vampire in the city and was just another piece in the games they played with each other, albeit a significant one.
    The Vampires in the Camarilla's Inner Circle go so far in staying hidden, discreet, and subtle that even out-of-universe the players don't know their identities .

    Comment


    • I have though about the antitribu Lasombra previously in the Camarilla. The Archon Kleist, for example. Are they out of the pact of the new Lasombra? And Giangaleazzo of Milan is in V5 Prince of that city?

      I'm thinking in particular about the situation of the Lasombra in Spain, a country where that clan is numerous, and I writing a background for the Lasombra more flexible, with an internal war in the clan, and some Lasombra accepted in the Camarilla as the rest of antitribu of his clan.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Wissenschaft View Post
        Oh I agree that no one really won the war. The Sabbat just split and half or more went on some insane crusade into the middle east. But you think any Camarilla prince is going to admit that? Yeah right, they'll be rubbing the Lasombra's face in the mud for a while. As the text say, time for the Magisters to suck it up for the team if they want to survive and get back to winning. Those with too big an ego or "shock and gasp" are true believers in the sabbat will have to be eliminated. The lesson? Clan always comes first. (Something the Tremere and Venture know well).
        Since the Sabbat were fighting against the Camarilla saying that there are no Antediluvians; the Camarilla acknowledging the threat kinda means that the Sabbat "Won" the ideological war.
        It's all about what the terms of "winning" are to elders, and eliminating the enemy wholeheartedly isn't usually one of the categories they expect.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Magus View Post
          I have though about the antitribu Lasombra previously in the Camarilla. (...)
          I haven't read any of the V5 books, but I assume that the Lasombra Antitribu in V5 don't have any of the new requirements or restrictions applied to them. Some of them might associate with the Lasombra newly joining the Camarilla, but it is not the Lasombra's Antitribu default approach and attitude towards them.
          Are the Lasombra joining the Camarilla in V5 called Lasombra Antitribu ? Are the Lasombra Antitribu who were in the Camarilla before the current V5 events mentioned ?
          Last edited by Muad'Dib; 12-31-2018, 07:15 PM.

          Comment


          • So far we haven’t seen the word “antitribu” at all in V5, and the Anarch book suggests that there are various epithets for members of clans who do not belong to their clan’s favored sect, so I’m thinking that concept may have been dropped altogether. Now there are just Lasombra, period. There are Sabbat Lasombra and Anarch Lasombra and Camarilla Lasombra, and some of that last group happened to join a few centuries before the clan leadership came around.

            Could there be bad blood there? Sure, if you find that interesting. Or there could be a great deal of relief for the previous Camarilla minority to no longer be such a tiny minority and now have access to the main body of the clan. Sort of like being unexcommunicated.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Black Flag View Post
              So far we haven’t seen the word “antitribu” at all in V5, and the Anarch book suggests that there are various epithets for members of clans who do not belong to their clan’s favored sect, so I’m thinking that concept may have been dropped altogether.
              Are there any examples of these epithets given in the V5 Anarch book ?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Muad'Dib View Post
                Are there any examples of these epithets given in the V5 Anarch book ?
                Yeah, each clan has an inside term for the “traitors.” So you have “Free Ventrue,” “Red Nosferatu,” “Abstract Toreador,” “Unchained Malkavians,” etc.

                Similarly, you have “Hellenistic Brujah” who stuck with the Camarilla.

                Basically, this edition has more major sects, and anyone can be in any sect, so it no longer makes sense to have a tribe/anti-tribe binary designation. Instead I expect clans will have their own terms to refer to members in each sect.

                Comment


                • I loved the concept of antitribu, as well as the word! Damn!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by adambeyoncelowe View Post
                    I loved the concept of antitribu, as well as the word! Damn!
                    Me too. And it's not like clans not having main allegiances in V5 either, or that every sect didn't contain members of every clan (with the possible exception of the most closed ones) in earlier editions already...

                    Let's put it onto the "changing the setting for the sake of changing it" pile. I'm honestly tired of this, but it's just thing after thing after thing aiming for make the setting less and less like it was.

                    Also, my problem with this "everyone clan equally in every sect" approach is that it worked in Requiem, where clans are just vampiric archetypes. In VtM, however, clans have their own lookouts, culture, politics and history of why they are where they are, as a majority. Yes, VtM clans aren't just bloodlines of vampiric families, they are political entities too, some with a more unified front than other, true, but still. The Antitribu being the ones opposing the main policy and the autarkis being the ones just wanting to be left out of it made sense. This cheapens that.

                    It also doesn't make sense, why vampiric society wouldn't have a common word for those who are opposing the sect's majority and siding with the enemy, but every clan would have their own. I'd say it'd be best with having both, but if I had to choose, having one common term makes more sense.
                    Last edited by PMárk; 01-01-2019, 04:27 PM.


                    If nothing worked, then let's think!

                    Comment


                    • The problem with the word “antitribu” (aside from being a made-up Spanish word for no apparent reason) is that it doesn’t tell you much. So they’re not in the sect that the clan leadership has decided to affiliate with; okay, but what sect are they actually *in*?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Black Flag View Post
                        The problem with the word “antitribu” (aside from being a made-up Spanish word for no apparent reason) is that it doesn’t tell you much. So they’re not in the sect that the clan leadership has decided to affiliate with; okay, but what sect are they actually *in*?
                        They are against the Tribe / Clan. That is their alliegiance, it doesn't matter what "Sect" they chose, they haven't chosen correctly.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by PMárk View Post

                          Me too. And it's not like clans not having main allegiances in V5 either, or that every sect didn't contain members of every clan (with the possible exception of the most closed ones) in earlier editions already...

                          Let's put it onto the "changing the setting for the sake of changing it" pile. I'm honestly tired of this, but it's just thing after thing after thing aiming for make the setting less and less like it was.

                          Also, my problem with this "everyone clan equally in every sect" approach is that it worked in Requiem, where clans are just vampiric archetypes. In VtM, however, clans have their own lookouts, culture, politics and history of why they are where they are, as a majority. Yes, VtM clans aren't just bloodlines of vampiric families, they are political entities too, some with a more unified front than other, true, but still. The Antitribu being the ones opposing the main policy and the autarkis being the ones just wanting to be left out of it made sense. This cheapens that.

                          It also doesn't make sense, why vampiric society wouldn't have a common word for those who are opposing the sect's majority and siding with the enemy, but every clan would have their own. I'd say it'd be best with having both, but if I had to choose, having one common term makes more sense.
                          Firstly, of course clans still have a main affiliation. Otherwise, the Brujah leaving the Cam and the Banu Haqim joining would not be major aspects of the current metaplot. Second, as Black Flag notes, Antitribu makes sense only in a two-sect-environment. The Brujah are officially Anarch. So Brujah Antitribu are… Camarilla? Sabbat? Ashirra?
                          So no, this really isn’t change for change’s sake.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Cifer View Post
                            Firstly, of course clans still have a main affiliation. Otherwise, the Brujah leaving the Cam and the Banu Haqim joining would not be major aspects of the current metaplot. Second, as Black Flag notes, Antitribu makes sense only in a two-sect-environment. The Brujah are officially Anarch. So Brujah Antitribu are… Camarilla? Sabbat? Ashirra?
                            So no, this really isn’t change for change’s sake.
                            To be fair, "antitribu" was mostly a Cam thing. Even the Sabbat antitribu called themselves that to spite their Cam clan-kin.

                            Also, Anarchs was not a totally separate sect (and I'm not really a fan of them being one in V5) and Ashirra wasn't an organized sect.

                            But, if I want to stretch it a bit, yes, everyone who is pointedly against the sect the big majority of the clan claims as its own, is an antitribu.


                            If nothing worked, then let's think!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by PMárk View Post
                              To be fair, "antitribu" was mostly a Cam thing. Even the Sabbat antitribu called themselves that to spite their Cam clan-kin.

                              Also, Anarchs was not a totally separate sect (and I'm not really a fan of them being one in V5) and Ashirra wasn't an organized sect.
                              Exactly. The facts changed, so the appellations did as well. Antitribu made sense in prior editions. It doesn’t anymore though - note that even the Camarilla clans will have large Anarch factions because the Cam shrunk down to „whoever is useful or powerful enough“. I would assume there are very few clans that have a majority of their members in a single sect by now. Tremere and Ventrue for the Cam, Brujah for Anarchs. Perhaps the Ministry as well. Everyone else may have strong pluralities at best.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by PMárk View Post
                                To be fair, "antitribu" was mostly a Cam thing. Even the Sabbat antitribu called themselves that to spite their Cam clan-kin.
                                Also, Anarchs was not a totally separate sect (and I'm not really a fan of them being one in V5) and Ashirra wasn't an organized sect.
                                But, if I want to stretch it a bit, yes, everyone who is pointedly against the sect the big majority of the clan claims as its own, is an antitribu.
                                Yeah, technically the Camarilla considered everyone to be a part of it, so antitribu makes more sense before they became more elitist.

                                But it's getting really strenuous trying to work out what the implications of changes are in this edition without them being explicitly listed. We're not even going to get a break down for what the deal is with Second Inquisition for a year and a half, and they're meant to be a major antagonist factor.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X