Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Embraced Revenant

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Nosimplehiway View Post

    Except Tlacique, who claim to be Setites. They have Protean in-clan, and have Jaguars as their most common fight form... which is supposed to be impossible for any non-Gangrel. Of course, there could be a Drowned Legacies loophole of some sort.
    No. Tlacique don't claim to be settites. Other claim there is a connection because of their flaw. Also its you know IN clan for them.

    Then there are the Noiad, who the Gangrel claim as one of their bloodlines. However, they have an entirely different and unrelated weakness, which makes the claim suspect. They also have a discipline spread and "mystic ruler of a people" lifestyle much more evocative of a Tzimisce (or at least proto-Tzimisce) bloodline. When they use their Protean, iirc, they can have forms other than wolf and bat. Of course, there could be a whatever-the-European-version-of-a-Drowned-Legacies-is loophole of some sort.
    why is the Noiad claim suspect? Why does clan weakness mean more than disciplines?




    The Warrior variation of Gargoyles had Protean as an in-clan discipline, and so could manifest it spontaneously. I don't recall any sources saying whether they can do forms other than wolf-bat. Would this make a stone wolf with wings? Is their flight form a rock pigeon?
    Considering the nature of where gargoyles who have protean inclan come from I'd argue they count as Gangrel for these purposes.


    Finally, in Lore of the Clans (p91) it says: "Note that non-Gangrel characters always turn into a wolf and bat, unless they select the Totemic Change Merit". The Totemic Change merit (LotC, p87) allows the user to take any animal form when using Protean, and appears to be available to non-Gangrel. Weirdly, this means that although we, ooc, "know" that only Gangrel can take a form other than wolf-bat, in-world that would be a less certain thing. Presumably, somewhere in the WoD is a Toreador who can turn into a peacock or whatever.
    .
    There may be? This doesn't mean Protean is a common discipline. It clearly has special qualities for the Gangrel and people of Gangrel descent.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Nosimplehiway View Post
      Given that the first half of the quote on p91 is clearly incorrect due to the Tlacique, perhaps we should discount the second half, as well. Chalk it up to a continuity hiccup, missed by the editor, I guess.
      Or maybe the Tlacique being Setites it's just what they want to believe and they're actually Gangrel like the Noiad. And thus it's more a "Gangrel-kin loophole" of which all Gangrel bloodlines benefit, like the Mariners who also have their own forms...Is there a non-Gangrel bloodline that has other forms?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Nosimplehiway View Post
        Presumably, somewhere in the WoD is a Toreador who can turn into a peacock or whatever.
        Or maybe a deer, a lynx, or a swan !

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Aleph View Post
          Or maybe the Tlacique being Setites it's just what they want to believe and they're actually Gangrel like the Noiad. And thus it's more a "Gangrel-kin loophole" of which all Gangrel bloodlines benefit, like the Mariners who also have their own forms...Is there a non-Gangrel bloodline that has other forms?
          Why would the Tlacique choose to identify with the Setites? Given Nahuallotl is based on perpetuating the existence of the world, their theology is a difficult fit. The Gangrel are much more acceptable in most domains than the Setites, if seen as a bit declasse. The Gangrel would also be more likely to just kind of ignore their peculiar religion and move on with their day, rather than some night deciding Tezcatlipoca is an Aeon and launching a purge.

          It's possible Tlacique are, in fact, a bloodline of Gangrel, sure. It is even mentioned that some Setites are a little nervous they may have adopted a Gangrel bloodline by mistake.

          However, the structure of published works imply otherwise. The Tlacique debuted in the Setite Revised clanbook. In Lore of the Clans, the Tlacique are found in the Followers of Set chapter, albeit with some hedging by the unreliable narrator over their origins.

          In V20 core, the Tlacique are listed among the Setite bloodlines alongside the Daitya. In this instance, the text (with no unreliable narrator serving as a filter) is more explicit that they are Setites (or at least Setite adjacent):

          The Tlacique are unquestionably a Setite line, though only their vulnerability to sunlight marks them as such.
          I would argue it is not only their weakness, but also two of their three disciplines and a propensity for blood magic, to boot. In other instances of bloodline differentiation, there is usually a single discipline changed, while the weakness either remains the same, or has a similar theme. So, the Tlacique being a Setite bloodline fits the pattern.

          Examples:
          • Ventrue -> 2ed. Ventrue antitribu (same weakness)
          • Tzimisce -> Tremere (thematically similar weakness, one tied to land, other tied to clan)
          • Malkavians w/ Dementation -> Malkavians w/ Dominate -> Malkavians w/ Dementation (same weakness, though different degree)
          • Lasombra -> V20 Kiasyd (okay, you got me, complete weakness change, but only one disc. changed)
          • Old Clan Tzimisce -> Tzimisce (same weakness)
          • True Brujah -> Brujah (no emotion to too much emotion)
          • Setites -> Warrior Setites (same weakness)
          • Gangrel -> Greek Gangrel (same weakness)
          • Greek Gangrel -> City Gangrel (same weakness)
          • Ravnos -> Phuri Dae (same weakness)
          • Ventrue -> Danava (similar weakness)
          • Toreador -> Toreador antitribu (same disciplines, thematically similar weakness)
          Obviously, there are exceptions to this pattern, especially among certain clans (Cappadocian and Assamite, chiefly), but the more points of similarity two species have in common, the more likely they are to be closely related. The Tlacique have more points of similarity with the Setites than the Gangrel.

          I suppose it could be argued the chain was: Gangrel -> Greek Gangrel -> City Gangrel -> Tlacique. However, sources seem pretty certain that the Tlacique preceded the City Gangrel.

          As for the "Gangrel-kin loophole", we'll have to agree to disagree. If I don't accept your premise that the Tlacique and (with less certainty) the Noiad are Gangrel-kin, then the Gangrel-kin loophole wouldn't be persuasive at all for me.

          It's slightly mushy logic. It's like positing that only cats have tails, fur, and claws. Were someone to point out that dogs have tails, fur, and claws, as well, would it therefore follow that dogs must be a sub-set of cats? No, it would just mean that there are non-cats with tails, fur, and claws. Which is sort of, by analogy, my premise.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Nosimplehiway View Post
            It's slightly mushy logic. It's like positing that only cats have tails, fur, and claws. Were someone to point out that dogs have tails, fur, and claws, as well, would it therefore follow that dogs must be a sub-set of cats? No, it would just mean that there are non-cats with tails, fur, and claws. Which is sort of, by analogy, my premise.

            Extrapolating the above offering, I give my own interpterion.

            Setites = Cats
            Gangrel = Dogs
            Tlacique = Hyenas

            They have the appearance of one, mannerisms of the other, but are something completely different.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Nosimplehiway View Post
              (...)The Gangrel would also be more likely to just kind of ignore their peculiar religion and move on with their day, rather than some night deciding Tezcatlipoca is an Aeon and launching a purge.
              Somehow I imagine the Followers of Set only ever using the term Aeons in a general, slightly vague plural. For example : "This is the work of the Aeons." or "The Aeons' influence is especially visible here." . I think it takes something away if a particular deity is identified using the singular of this word. What matters most is that the Aeons are a homogeneous, straightfoward group / undertaking / conspiracy. Only ever using the plural form of this word puts it across in a succinctly.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Lian View Post
                why is the Noiad claim suspect? Why does clan weakness mean more than disciplines?
                This is one I feel less strongly about than the Tlacique.

                It's not really that weakness means more, just that I weight it the same as each of the three disciplines. The Noiad have Animalism, Auspex, and Protean, with a weakness of only feeding on humans. Historically, this meant the Sami people to whom the Noiad had an intimate, spiritual bond. The Noiad have a reputation as shaman and soothsayers among their people.

                So, the Noiad only have one discipline in common with the Gangrel, and a weakness which is altogether unrelated to the Gangrel weakness. Their traditional lifestyle isn't especially similar to the Gangrel.

                The standard Gangrel have Animalism, Fortitude, Protean, with a weakness of becoming more physically bestial with each frenzy. This weakness is shared with nearly all of their other bloodlines, while the discipline spread is prone to changing often. In fairness, Protean does seem to be a prerequisite for being accepted as a Gangrel bloodline. (Otherwise we'd be discussing the Ravnos being a Gangrel bloodline like in 2d edition.) But, fulfilling a prerequisite doesn't automatically indicate membership in a group.

                Speaking of Ravnos... the Noiad actually have more disciplines in common with the Ravnos Phuri Dae (who also have a reputation as soothsayers and mystics) than with the Gangrel. Their weakness is also arguably similar to the Ravnos, since drinking human blood is inarguably a vice.

                The Noiad are also more similar to the Tzimisce than the Gangrel. The Tzimisce have Animalism, Auspex, and Vicissitude, with a weakness of only sleeping well in one particular soil, with which they have an intimate, spiritual bond. The Tzimisce have a reputation as mystics and sages. Plus, Protean has some undeniable similarities to Vicissitude.

                Am I saying the Noiad are Ravnos or Tzimisce? Nah, not really. But, if there are other possibilities besides Gangrel which seem like a closer match based on the actual mechanics, then it is no longer a slam-dunk truth that the Noiad are a Gangrel bloodline.

                My actual hunch and head-canon is that the Noiad are an entirely unrelated group of vampires, or one which shares a common ancestor with the Gangrel rather than being descended from them.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Nosimplehiway View Post
                  (...)
                  In other instances of bloodline differentiation, there is usually a single discipline changed, while the weakness either remains the same, or has a similar theme.
                  (...)
                  Has the "similar set of innate Disciplines" deduction method for determinating Clan and Bloodline ancestry been mentioned at all in the V:tM books as a method that Vampires use ?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Muad'Dib

                    No, not explicitly. It has been implied several times, however.

                    Examples:

                    "Kindred scholars believe that the Daughters sprang from the blood of either Clan Toreador (for their passionate artistic pursuit) or Malkavian (given their propensity for causing madness), but their supernatural powers point more toward Clan Ventrue." (V20, p398) This quote shows Kindred do consider discipline spreads as at least part of their analysis, alongside clan culture.

                    "The Kiasyd are a bloodline of the Lasombra Clan; that much is obvious, given that these odd Kindred make use of the Obtenebration Discipline." (V20, p404) In fairness, this is not clearly attributed to an in-universe source, but does show that, if nothing else, the writers include discipline spread as part of their own reasoning.

                    "How these cultists became vampires is lost to history, but those few Kindred that have met the Nagaraja have theories: maybe a wandering Giovanni trader Embraced them, perhaps they tried to follow in Tremere’s footsteps, or they could be the last surviving Cappadocians." (V20, 406) This is an interesting one. All three theories seem based on discipline spread. The Giovanni share Dominate and Necromancy. The Tremere share Auspex and Dominate. The Cappadocians share Auspex and Necromancy. Note, there doesn't seem to be a "lean" toward the Giovanni who have a vaguely similar clan weakness, as if disciplines were the more persuasive evidence.

                    "The Samedi might seem to be an offshoot of the Nosferatu, but their powers of Thanatosis — a Discipline dedicated to manipulating dead flesh — speak of a connection to the Giovanni or their doomed predecessors, the Cappadocians." (V20, p410) The similar clan weakness is all that links the Samedi and the Nosferatu, yet the speaker feels the need to disprove this as if it is a common misconception. On the other hand, the speaker seems to find a single, tenuously similar discipline sufficient evidence to dismiss the Nosferatu theory. (Never mind that "manipulating... flesh" is more the hallmark of the Tzimisce.)

                    "[The True Brujah] are sort of “anti-Brujah” according to the legends. Where we’re passionate, they’re emotionless. Where we use Celerity to move at superhuman speed, they have some weird, vaguely understood time-control power that lets them slow other people down." (Lore of the Clans: Brujah, p45) Here, the speaker outlines the data points used for vampiric taxonomy: the theme of their weakness, and related disciplines.

                    "No more Lycaon have been Embraced; all of their childer, and their childer’s childer, have turned out to be Coyotes." (LotC: Gangrel, p80-81) This is a subtle one. The speaker seems quite certain the Lycaon (Greek Gangrel) no longer breed true; their new embraces all yield City Gangrel. How could this be detected, other than the lack of a talent for Animalism and a knack for Celerity? Both Celerity and Obfuscate are learn-able as common disciplines, and in V20 the first dot of any discipline (in-clan or out) costs 10xp. This makes the trading of Animalism for Celerity as one of the subtlest mutations of any recognized bloodline, but seems notable enough to allow an unequivocal declaration that a new bloodline has replaced the old.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Nosimplehiway View Post

                      No, not explicitly. It has been implied several times, however.

                      Examples:

                      (...)
                      Thank you very much for these quotes. I thought that I read such considerations in V:tM books, but I wasn't sure. I do wonder what Vampires from groups that gather knowledge about Vampirism ( like the Noddists or the Bahari ) think about this method. I would think that there are more certain ways of ascertaining ancestry, that such groups would be using.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Nosimplehiway View Post
                        It's slightly mushy logic. It's like positing that only cats have tails, fur, and claws. Were someone to point out that dogs have tails, fur, and claws, as well, would it therefore follow that dogs must be a sub-set of cats? No, it would just mean that there are non-cats with tails, fur, and claws. Which is sort of, by analogy, my premise.
                        "According to Diogenes Laërtius, when Plato gave the tongue-in-cheek definition of man as "featherless bipeds," Diogenes plucked a chicken and brought it into Plato's Academy, saying, "Behold! I've brought you a man,"

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Illithid

                          Yep, necessary and sufficient are very different things.

                          Hopefully, Plato made a nice bowl of chicken soup, fed it Diogenes, and then accused him of cannibalism.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X