Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are the Ministry and House Carna a game-changer for the Anarchs?

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

  • #31
    Carna perceived an institutionalized misogyny in House Tremere going back centuries, which, frankly, isn’t surprising. That’s very different from being *officially* anti-woman. There have been women in the clan, and some have even risen far, but Carna saw that they had to fight much harder to be taken seriously than their male counterparts and were often passed over, which a couple of success stories doesn’t really refute.

    Possibly more importantly, Carna felt that the clan was insufficiently appreciative of the power of the feminine in a mystical context. So even female Tremere were expected to operate within a highly masculine-oriented Hermetic system designed by and for medieval men, while disregarding and disparaging ancient forms of magic that were associated with femininity. See Schrekt’s attitude in the V5 book for a clear example of that sort of soft misogyny.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by CTPhipps View Post
      The Anarchs have always been the second sect with a loosely defined leadership but are even more so since they have one more clan than the Sabbat themselves.
      I know that Anarchs are a Sect ; it's more of a theoretical rumination. I editted my post to make this clear.

      Originally posted by CTPhipps View Post
      Except, later, we met Merlinda.

      I.e. a 4th generation Tremere who was the 3rd most powerful Tremere after Etrius and Goratrix when the Big Boss was asleep and 2nd after Goratrix defected.
      I always liked Meerlinda and her history.

      Comment


      • #33
        Wait a minute. If the Ministry joining the Anarchs leads to them being more unified and hierarchical, could they eventually evolve into a sort-of-Sabbat (mysticism, packs, "freedom") while yet another faction become the anarchs of the Anarchs? So end of the day we would have Camarilla, Sabbat (maybe?), the Ministry Anarchs, and the anarch Anarchs?

        Comment


        • #34
          Okay, I get that in V5 the Camarilla powers-that-be are closing ranks, and forcing the issue of either falling in line or getting the hell out with regards to Anarchs and Anarch sympathizers, but I still don't see the issue with House Carna as a strict dichotomy. Major political cleavages don't necessary break sympathies or social ties between vampires who existed before them, and in the big picture for sufficiently-old vampires sect allegiance tends towards convenience anyhow.

          House Carna is nominally allied to the Camarilla, but they hold Anarch sympathies. That puts them in the same situation as Revised-era, Camarilla-allied Brujah and Gangrel. To the Cams they were Anarchs no matter what they said or did, but to the Anarchs they were Camarilla lickspittles.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by ChewyGranola View Post
            Wait a minute. If the Ministry joining the Anarchs leads to them being more unified and hierarchical, could they eventually evolve into a sort-of-Sabbat (mysticism, packs, "freedom") while yet another faction become the anarchs of the Anarchs? So end of the day we would have Camarilla, Sabbat (maybe?), the Ministry Anarchs, and the anarch Anarchs?
            The influence of the Followers of Set. assuming it will be considerable in regard to the Anarchs, would not necessarily result in them being more unified and hierarchical. It could happen, but I think it is more probable that the situation would be such that the Anarchs would better help the Setites accomplish their goals and aims while staying as decentralized as they are currently. I think it is highly likely that the Followers of Set would prefer it this way ; I think that such a cooperation between the two groups would be very interesting.

            What would be distinct about this other faction that you call the anarchs of the Anarchs ? Would they be like the current Anarchs, or different ?

            Originally posted by Theodrim View Post
            Okay, I get that in V5 the Camarilla powers-that-be are closing ranks, and forcing the issue of either falling in line or getting the hell out with regards to Anarchs and Anarch sympathizers, but I still don't see the issue with House Carna as a strict dichotomy. Major political cleavages don't necessary break sympathies or social ties between vampires who existed before them, and in the big picture for sufficiently-old vampires sect allegiance tends towards convenience anyhow.

            House Carna is nominally allied to the Camarilla, but they hold Anarch sympathies. That puts them in the same situation as Revised-era, Camarilla-allied Brujah and Gangrel. To the Cams they were Anarchs no matter what they said or did, but to the Anarchs they were Camarilla lickspittles.
            Yes, the position of House Carna makes sense. I hope it will stay this way ; the current situation of House Carna in V5 is compelling and interesting.
            Last edited by Muad'Dib; 12-24-2018, 01:05 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Muad'Dib View Post
              Yes, the position of House Carna makes sense. I hope it will stay this way ; the current situation of House Carna in V5 is compelling and interesting.
              I don't; from my perspective, considering what BJD had to say about the situation I feel as if they're being maneuvered into the same "designated good guy" boat as the Brujah and other Anarchs were, at least in those cases starting with V20. Or at the very least, the "intended PC faction" status, since for some reason "underdog = good guy = PC-friendly" with later WoD works. I'm not too keen on anyone having that status in my WoD games, and the way the other two groups I mentioned were handled during the V20 run really gave me a bad taste for it.

              I'm keeping an open mind to see where they go with House Carna, but considering the direction the Camarilla and its aligned clans seem to be going, my position is "skeptic" as opposed to "optimistic". They have to keep Carna distinct from iPiss and vice versa, and I think the latter faction just muddies the water and wasn't strictly necessary as going off BJD, Carna would have been much better-suited being "the Anarch House".

              But that hinges on my opinion the Anarchs are best portrayed as violent, hypocritical, idiots, and Carna being stuck with the sisyphean task of lifting them out of the social primordial ooze.
              Last edited by Theodrim; 01-02-2019, 12:46 AM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Damn right it’s a game Changer! It’s the difference between Psuedo sect like they were in Older Editions to becoming the new Camarilla! Ministry Brings Soul. Carna Brings Power. Also the Ministry bring power and secrets...


                It’s like the Ministry are the Tzimisce if the Sect.
                Clan of Faith indeed!


                It is a time for great deeds!

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Eldagusto View Post
                  Damn right it’s a game Changer! It’s the difference between Psuedo sect like they were in Older Editions to becoming the new Camarilla!
                  Any particular reasons why you call them 'pseudo Sects' ?

                  Originally posted by Eldagusto View Post
                  Ministry Brings Soul. Carna Brings Power. Also the Ministry bring power and secrets...


                  It’s like the Ministry are the Tzimisce if the Sect.
                  Clan of Faith indeed!
                  Under this consideration, House Carna could also be seen as bringing soul to the Camarilla, considering their outlook, perspectives, and approach.
                  Last edited by Muad'Dib; 01-02-2019, 07:38 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I called the Anarchs a Psuedo sect in earlier editions because they really treated anything not Camarilla or Sabbat Oriented as niche. So the Anarchs weren’t take seriously, especially not in the big picture.


                    It is a time for great deeds!

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Eldagusto View Post
                      I called the Anarchs a Psuedo sect in earlier editions because they really treated anything not Camarilla or Sabbat Oriented as niche. (...)
                      Wasn't the Tal'Mahe'Ra described and outlined in it's first book as a Sect comparable to the Camarilla and the Sabbat in regard to their capabilities ? ( It has been a long time since I read through the first Tal'Mahe'Ra book. ) In the second Tal'Mahe'Ra book the Sect certainly seems to be described and defined in this way.
                      Last edited by Muad'Dib; 01-02-2019, 02:05 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Theodrim View Post

                        I don't; from my perspective, considering what BJD had to say about the situation I feel as if they're being maneuvered into the same "designated good guy" boat as the Brujah and other Anarchs were, at least in those cases starting with V20. Or at the very least, the "intended PC faction" status, since for some reason "underdog = good guy = PC-friendly" with later WoD works. I'm not too keen on anyone having that status in my WoD games, and the way the other two groups I mentioned were handled during the V20 run really gave me a bad taste for it.

                        I'm keeping an open mind to see where they go with House Carna, but considering the direction the Camarilla and its aligned clans seem to be going, my position is "skeptic" as opposed to "optimistic". They have to keep Carna distinct from iPiss and vice versa, and I think the latter faction just muddies the water and wasn't strictly necessary as going off BJD, Carna would have been much better-suited being "the Anarch House".
                        It's not later works.

                        It's Gothic Punk.

                        I.e. Cyberpunk with fantasy elements rather than technological ones.

                        You fight the Man.

                        It's why the Anarchs are the designated PC class because who wants to play scummy establishment figures?

                        But that hinges on my opinion the Anarchs are best portrayed as violent, hypocritical, idiots, and Carna being stuck with the sisyphean task of lifting them out of the social primordial ooze.
                        Yeah, the Anarchs are flawed so the PCs must do the heavy lifting. They are the only one who want to do better, though.


                        Author of Cthulhu Armageddon, I was a Teenage Weredeer, Straight Outta Fangton, Lucifer's Star, and the Supervillainy Saga.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Yeah, Anarchs struggling against the Camarilla isn’t a new thing; that was the default mode of play in V1. It was still there in every subsequent edition, but it got downplayed as the sect war between Camarilla & Sabbat got increasingly played up and, because the Anarchs weren’t really treated as an independent sect until V20 (LA by Night notwithstanding) they weren’t taken seriously by the authors as sect war material. Meanwhile, the Sabbat effectively became the Anarch-like sect.

                          But yeah, Anarchs are the punk in gothic-punk. Camarilla (and Sabbat too, when they’re depicted correctly) is more to the gothic side of things.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by CTPhipps View Post

                            It's why the Anarchs are the designated PC class because who wants to play scummy establishment figures?
                            Here's the issue with this position. In past versions, Anarchs were just as, if not more, scummy and distasteful than other sects. They are -- or more precisely, were -- a society of violent predators whose entire social hierarchy boiled down to "might makes right", which existed in the fringes of contemporary society with all the criminal, abusive, and exploitative baggage that entails, whose only actual cleavage to ideas such as "equality" and "freedom" are through rhetoric and propaganda. Genuine idealism was the exception, not the rule, and behind every genuine idealist (or group of them) was an ancilla or elder or two looking to exploit them for material or social gain.

                            I chose my words very carefully, thank you. Emphasis on the "good" in "designated good guy". Anarchs aren't good guys, and they shouldn't be. This is where my issue arises, because of the careful whitewashing of the Anarchs starting with V20.

                            No offense, but yours is an astoundingly facile interpretation of the punk genre. Neither is it yours alone, judging by the general reception of V5 and the nature of the controversies surrounding it.

                            What punk is about, is social commentary through self-aware antithesis. The antithesis is explicitly not superior in any conceivable way, and in fact it's ideally inferior, which is why punk is so-often misinterpreted as a nihilistic genre. The antithesis, in this case, being the worst-possible outcome of the thesis taken to its natural conclusion. The very point is to give offense which spurs critique of the thesis, through which develops synthesis. For lack of a better way to put it, it's an inherently Hegelian genre.

                            "Fight the Man" is just the most common trope through which commentary is delivered, and yes the thesis-antithesis relationship works in both the context of the story itself, and the story as social commentary. "The Man" being the antithesis to whatever social forces, norms, or institutions are the target of commentary, and "those who fight the Man" being simultaneously the antithesis of "The Man" in the context of that story, and a cautionary tale against rebellion for its own sake absent mediation. There's a reason dysfunction and anti-heroism is such a pervasive, common, theme among punk protagonists.

                            I'll put this another way. Punk argues "W" problems with "X" institutions lead to "X" becoming dystopic "Y". Dystopic "Y" causes equally, if not more, dystopic "Z" counter-institution (formal or informal). The progression from "X" to "Z" represents an overall devolution of society to be prevented; to achieve that, solve for "W" which reforms "X". That equation doesn't work too bloody well if "Z" is utopian, now does it?

                            Not to put too fine a point on it, but fuck it. I'll take one theme of A Clockwork Orange (the film, not the novel, because Kubrick gives this theme special attention compared to Burgess) to illustrate: sexual repression. The dystopian English society depicted is deeply and harshly sexually repressed, and that repression gives rise to deviant sexuality. The point isn't to idealize Alex's violent and predatory sexuality, it's to point out it's a consequence of society's sexual repression, which means sexual liberation is the means to prevent behavior such as Alex's.

                            "Good guy Anarchs" is about the furthest thing from punk as one could possibly conceive. In fact, it robs the setting in its "default" state of its "punk-ness".
                            Last edited by Theodrim; 01-02-2019, 01:02 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Muad'Dib View Post
                              Wasn't the Sect dscribed and outlined in it as comparable to the Camarilla and the Sabbat in regard to their capabilities ? ( It has been a long time since I read through the first Tal'Mahe'Ra book. ) In the second Tal'Mahe'Ra book the Sect certainly seems to be described and defined in this way.
                              I always got the impression they were cast offs and rabble who didn’t want to entrench in the Camarilla’s messed up politics but didn’t want to be inhuman like the Sabbat. And sure they had some competent members, especially when old Vikings joined, but were mostly viewed as inconsequential outside the Anarch Free States which were mostly in power on the west coast and kept in check by the Kindred of the East.


                              It is a time for great deeds!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Theodrim your ideas are intriguing to me and I’d like to subscribe to your newsletter.

                                Exactly Anarchs are Might Makes Right predators. A good example from the books I like is the weekend warrior Tremere template, where you were a Biker Anarch for few days but most of the time your a good little Tremere in the city.

                                I don’t want the Anarchs to be portrayed as the good guy option. It kills the mood of the game and seems pandery.


                                It is a time for great deeds!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X