Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Anarch Books and California Summaries

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by CTPhipps View Post
    For me, the Anarchs are not a bunch of rabble and angry punks but an intellectual and ideological resistance to tyranny that has existed for over a 1000 years in various forms.
    I didn't say tha they're just punks and rabble (though that was an important part of it) and I also mentioned their lineage and history. However, in my eyes, even at the heights of the anarch movement, it was more like a collection of ancillae and neonates saying "fuck the elders",than a "movement", centered around an ideology. Well, besides "fuck the elders".

    In short, what is the most important part of the Anarchs, IMO, is that they're refusing to blindly bow to authority, not any kind of idealism, or utopistic beliefs beyond that. Those are depending on the individual and not even all of them are wanting to just burn down the Camarilla.

    The idea the Carthians are all communist is a bizarre statement to me, though, because they are a variety of ideologies welded together with the only thing in common being, "The Invictus way does not work nor does theocracy."
    I didn't say they're all communist. I said that regarding the Brujah intellectual archetype, not because I thought you implied that, but because it is frequantly being portrayed like that.

    I'm aware the Carthians are not restricted to far-left ideologies, but nevertheless, what matters is that they're collectivists, with authoritarial bends. I'd reiterate: some, even a large chunk of the modern Anarchs are like that, sure, but not all and I never was a fan of those. What I liked in the Anarchs (and the Brujah) were the rebelliousness (not just the teenage type, but the intellectual type) and the individualism and idealist movements tend to hate both.

    So, again, in my eyes, the non-idealist Anarchs, in principle, just want to fuck with authority, any authority, when it gets tyrannical, while the Idealist ones and the Carthians want to be the authority and they're "rebelling" only in the sense of not yet being there.





    If nothing worked, then let's think!

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by CTPhipps View Post
      LA by Night isn't a BAD book but it's not a very interesting book either because it takes LA, the 2nd largest city in the United States, and reduces it to Gangs, Gangs, and Gangs. It also does the same for the Anarch movement.
      If the gangs had all been these groups of "punks, freaks, skinheads, techno-fetishists, modern primitives, hip hop fanatics, and heavy metal warriors" like some sort of insane Warriors cosplay, it might've been fun, but my main reaction when it first came out was, "this is slightly dull, especially when compared to Chicago".

      But then, its list of reference material did not include Repo Man, The Terminator, Less Than Zero, or Point Break, but did include Xanadu and The Beverly Hillbillies, so apparently my idea of what 1994 LA was like in the WoD differed from the author's.
      Last edited by No One of Consequence; 05-14-2019, 10:45 PM.


      What is tolerance? It is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other's folly. That is the first law of nature.
      Voltaire, "Tolerance" (1764)

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by No One of Consequence View Post

        If the gangs had all been these groups of "punks, freaks, skinheads, techno-fetishists, modern primitives, hip hop fanatics, and heavy metal warriors" like some sort of insane Warriors cosplay, it might've been fun, but my main reaction when it first came out was, "this is slightly dull, especially when compared to Chicago".

        But then, its list of reference material did not include Repo Man, The Terminator, Less Than Zero, or Point Break, but did include Xanadu and The Beverly Hillbillies, so apparently my idea of what 1994 LA was like in the WoD differed from the author's.
        That is a collection of movies in California, yes.


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

        Comment


        • #19
          I think both Idealist and Rebel Anarchs work well, just in different scenarios.

          The Rebels, of course, always have a use in VtM games, particularly when the Camarilla (or, more rarely, the Sabbat) are in charge. For obvious reasons. They generate conflict, and generally want to destroy the status quo. Or, failing that, to disrupt and alter the status quo. Rebels, however, can also sometimes work in favor of the status quo, if they think or can be convinced that whatever force at work within or against the existing system is worse than the system itself. Either these Rebels get duped into serving the status quo (against their own best interests), or they aim to use their involvement to score a victory anyway, such as by forcing those in power to provide concessions.

          Idealists care much less about violently overthrowing the system, and more about bringing that system in line with their ideals. In that way, they can be used in three modes: alongside Rebels in Cam territory, as loyal opposition in Cam territory, or as the de facto leadership of a Free State.

          In the first case, Idealists provide a deliberate and thoughtful counterweight to the recalcitrant Rebels. Idealists needing to convinced to support Rebels, or even acting against them if the Idealists think a particular rebellious action would be undesirable. Just as the Camarilla elites have their own factions and competing interests, a domain that houses both Rebel and Idealist Anarchs becomes a hotbed of intrigue, compromise, and conflict.

          In the second case, the Idealists serve Anarch interests by being a power bloc that checks Camarilla excesses and forces them to make compromises, while still ultimately believing in some kind of system (or because they can't yet be rid of Camarilla autocrats). A more cordial relationship between Anarch and Camarilla can be put to different storytelling uses than one where the two groups are at each others' throats. Both on a sectarian level and an individual level. It's a place where a sire and childe can be on either side of the divide, and yet have not unreasonable expectations that the other might "see reason" and switch sides (possibly again).

          In the third case, after Rebels have dispensed with the former systems of control, someone has to take the reins, lest a Rebel-controlled Free State spirals out into infighting or new totalitarianism. As the French Revolution taught us, revolutionaries do not always make for good leaders. Whether Idealists simply put a Baron in charge, or attempt to promote alternative forms of Kindred government that will hopefully be more egalitarian or "fair", is up to the situation and the vampires involved. As is whether the new Anarch status quo actually works out long-term, or whether it crashes and burns.

          What I liked about Anarchs Unbound was its examination of the Anarch Movement as a perpetually experimenting pseudo-sect, devoted both to flipping existing vampire power structures AND in finding new ways for vampires to vampire. It doesn't always work, but they TRY, making it better than the staid, oligarchic Prince-and-Primogen system the Camarilla has maintained for centuries, come hell or high water.


          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by No One of Consequence View Post

            If the gangs had all been these groups of "punks, freaks, skinheads, techno-fetishists, modern primitives, hip hop fanatics, and heavy metal warriors" like some sort of insane Warriors cosplay, it might've been fun, but my main reaction when it first came out was, "this is slightly dull, especially when compared to Chicago".

            But then, its list of reference material did not include Repo Man, The Terminator, Less Than Zero, or Point Break, but did include Xanadu and The Beverly Hillbillies, so apparently my idea of what 1994 LA was like in the WoD differed from the author's.
            I'd just say that Shadowrun did gangs a lot better.


            If nothing worked, then let's think!

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Bluecho View Post
              I think both Idealist and Rebel Anarchs work well, just in different scenarios.

              The Rebels, of course, always have a use in VtM games, particularly when the Camarilla (or, more rarely, the Sabbat) are in charge. For obvious reasons. They generate conflict, and generally want to destroy the status quo. Or, failing that, to disrupt and alter the status quo. Rebels, however, can also sometimes work in favor of the status quo, if they think or can be convinced that whatever force at work within or against the existing system is worse than the system itself. Either these Rebels get duped into serving the status quo (against their own best interests), or they aim to use their involvement to score a victory anyway, such as by forcing those in power to provide concessions.

              Idealists care much less about violently overthrowing the system, and more about bringing that system in line with their ideals. In that way, they can be used in three modes: alongside Rebels in Cam territory, as loyal opposition in Cam territory, or as the de facto leadership of a Free State.

              In the first case, Idealists provide a deliberate and thoughtful counterweight to the recalcitrant Rebels. Idealists needing to convinced to support Rebels, or even acting against them if the Idealists think a particular rebellious action would be undesirable. Just as the Camarilla elites have their own factions and competing interests, a domain that houses both Rebel and Idealist Anarchs becomes a hotbed of intrigue, compromise, and conflict.

              In the second case, the Idealists serve Anarch interests by being a power bloc that checks Camarilla excesses and forces them to make compromises, while still ultimately believing in some kind of system (or because they can't yet be rid of Camarilla autocrats). A more cordial relationship between Anarch and Camarilla can be put to different storytelling uses than one where the two groups are at each others' throats. Both on a sectarian level and an individual level. It's a place where a sire and childe can be on either side of the divide, and yet have not unreasonable expectations that the other might "see reason" and switch sides (possibly again).

              In the third case, after Rebels have dispensed with the former systems of control, someone has to take the reins, lest a Rebel-controlled Free State spirals out into infighting or new totalitarianism. As the French Revolution taught us, revolutionaries do not always make for good leaders. Whether Idealists simply put a Baron in charge, or attempt to promote alternative forms of Kindred government that will hopefully be more egalitarian or "fair", is up to the situation and the vampires involved. As is whether the new Anarch status quo actually works out long-term, or whether it crashes and burns.
              That is a qutie good assesment, thank you! Though I tend to view it as idealists are the ones with the, well, ideological agenda they want to supplant with the existing system and rebels are the ones refusing any overbearing authority. In that, both could be intellectual and rabble, so it's a two-axis coordinate system in my mind.


              What I liked about Anarchs Unbound was its examination of the Anarch Movement as a perpetually experimenting pseudo-sect, devoted both to flipping existing vampire power structures AND in finding new ways for vampires to vampire. It doesn't always work, but they TRY, making it better than the staid, oligarchic Prince-and-Primogen system the Camarilla has maintained for centuries, come hell or high water.
              Agree, though I think that includes making the Cam better, more egalitarian. As I see it, Anarchs don't necessarily want to burn down the system and supplant it with a new one (though many do, or just going as far as burning), but want to improve on the unlives of vampires. Some do it on an individual basis, some on a collectivist one.

              On the other hand, I see the Carthians (and a sizeable portion of the Anarchs, sure), as the kind of folks, who're throwing around words like "the people" in an attempt of making the world work along the lines of their idealism and ultimately, to be the ones making the calls.





              If nothing worked, then let's think!

              Comment


              • #22
                The Camarilla always said that Anarchs were part of it but the Anarchs never agreed to that and it was always propaganda.

                But yes, I think the Anarchs should be their own sect and a powerful underground disorganized alternative.

                But YMMV.
                Last edited by CTPhipps; 05-15-2019, 07:38 PM.


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

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by CTPhipps View Post
                  The Camarilla always said that Anarchs were part of it but the Anarchs never agreed to that and it was always propaganda.
                  I'd say Convention of Thorns and leave it at that.

                  But yes, I think the Anarchs should be their own sect and a powerful underground disorganized alternative.

                  But YMMV.
                  Yeah, tastes and preferences differ, no problem with that. What I don't like is calling the Anarchs collectively, as pictured in the prior material, as "jokes", or "meaningless". Honestly, the bunch I'd label as a "joke" the most is precisely the Free States ones, because that shows what happens when the "full independency from the Camarilla" folks won and how much that is workable. Also, I absolutely think they were an alternative (and my favorite group), they just weren't a totally independent full sect at open war with the others, but a strange half-sect, sometimes independent, sometimes in the Cam and I liked the many-layered and complex nature of that, their unique position and role.

                  I'd even go as far as saying: in the V5 timeline, seeing how much cities the Cam lost to the Anarchs, but how disorganized those are, aside from the desire to oust the Cam, the raturning Sabbat (if they'll return at any point...), ot the SI, or any number of the other supernatural groups should be able to steamroll most of them.


                  If nothing worked, then let's think!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    1. Given the Anarchs are a non-group, the Convention of Thorns was only binding to those Anarchs who particioated.

                    2. The Free States, like Russia, are just one example of how it could go down.


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

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by CTPhipps View Post
                      1. Given the Anarchs are a non-group, the Convention of Thorns was only binding to those Anarchs who particioated.
                      The Autarkis are a non-group.

                      Anarchs are (original Anarchs espceially were) a group, just a less homogenzied and centralised one. They had leaders, persons of some authority, cooperation between parts of it. It is/was an, ahhem, anarchist-type group. But it's still a group. Being an Anarch was always a distinctive thing, from being a vanilla Camarilla member, but you were a Camarilla member too.

                      Also, most of them did acknowledge the Convention of Thorns (and those who didn't went and founded the Sabbat) and even modern Anarchs use the rights given them in the Treaty of Thorns to upend the Camarilla hierarchy. Thus, they acknowledge it and their part in it.

                      It's like saying you never agreed to be a citizen of a state, thus the state's laws don't apply to you, yet, you're a citizen on merit of birth and you're using the benefits of that.


                      2. The Free States, like Russia, are just one example of how it could go down.
                      You know, until V5, my favorite clan was the Brujah (in tie with the Torreador), specifically their intellectual, philosopher-warrior archetype. The Anarch was my favorite group. Said all that, as a Hungarian, the role of the Brujah in the Communist reign of the USSR and Eastern-Europe always made me uneasy about it (as I see the whole thing as anything but positive) and I think there's a good lesson in it.


                      If nothing worked, then let's think!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by PMárk View Post
                        You know, until V5, my favorite clan was the Brujah (in tie with the Torreador), specifically their intellectual, philosopher-warrior archetype. The Anarch was my favorite group. Said all that, as a Hungarian, the role of the Brujah in the Communist reign of the USSR and Eastern-Europe always made me uneasy about it (as I see the whole thing as anything but positive) and I think there's a good lesson in it.
                        Yes, which is "When fighting authoritarians, do not become the authoritarian."

                        (die hard anti-communist in RL....as well as liberal reformer)

                        It's a perfect lesson for revolutionaries in RL as well as the Brujah in general as Neonates becoming Elders becoming Sellouts is something that SHOULD happen a lot.


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

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by CTPhipps View Post

                          Yes, which is "When fighting authoritarians, do not become the authoritarian."
                          Also, that you have to look at fiery revolutionaries and revolutions in general with a wary eye, because a lot of the time, it's not about freedom, it's about who's making the calls and there's no guarantee the next group will be better, on the contrary, if they are fervent idealists, it's most likely they will be worse.


                          (die hard anti-communist in RL....as well as liberal reformer)
                          I tend to say, I'm just against any totalitarian system. I'm seeing enough around me how the different dictatures, based on high and mighty ideals could cripple the soul of society and cause tremendous suffering. My country suffered Nazism, suffered Socialism and the scars in society and the soul of individuals are still there. No thanks. Same applies to anything else, that could lead to something similar.


                          It's a perfect lesson for revolutionaries in RL as well as the Brujah in general as Neonates becoming Elders becoming Sellouts is something that SHOULD happen a lot.
                          Yeah, it's a tough game, balancing between being a sellout and being an extremist nutjob. Everybody hates the center.




                          If nothing worked, then let's think!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by PMárk View Post
                            Also, that you have to look at fiery revolutionaries and revolutions in general with a wary eye, because a lot of the time, it's not about freedom, it's about who's making the calls and there's no guarantee the next group will be better, on the contrary, if they are fervent idealists, it's most likely they will be worse.
                            See also the French Revolution, and basically any revolutions in the 20th century in South America, Africa, and Southeast Asia. Constant carousels of revolutionaries becoming the next on the chopping block.

                            I tend to say, I'm just against any totalitarian system. I'm seeing enough around me how the different dictatures, based on high and mighty ideals could cripple the soul of society and cause tremendous suffering. My country suffered Nazism, suffered Socialism and the scars in society and the soul of individuals are still there. No thanks. Same applies to anything else, that could lead to something similar.
                            Not too long ago, I had a revelation: regardless of the merits of political philosophies, all can be (and have been) co-opted by the ambitious to further their quest for power. Whether that power is the goal, or merely what those in charge convince themselves is "necessary", there will always be those who create hierarchies that they can then rise to the top of. Monarchism, Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Capitalism, or Democracy, it matters not. They can (and have been) subverted to the cause of the power-hungry, to the suffering of those propping up the hierarchy.

                            It's why I stopped seeing any contradiction in my previous stance against totalitarian communism and my more recent opposition to unchecked capitalism. At their core, they are harmful because people in charge use their institutions to rob people's freedoms, exploit their work, and sow misery. It's not about philosophy, but about power.
                            Last edited by Bluecho; 05-20-2019, 04:05 PM.


                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Bluecho View Post

                              See also the French Revolution, and basically any revolutions in the 20th century in South America, Africa, and Southeast Asia. Constant carousels of revolutionaries becoming the next on the chopping block.
                              Well said.



                              Not too long ago, I had a revelation: regardless of the merits of political philosophies, all can be (and have been) co-opted by the ambitious to further their quest for power. Whether that power is the goal, or merely what those in charge convince themselves is "necessary", there will always be those who create hierarchies that they can then rise to the top of. Monarchism, Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Capitalism, or Democracy, it matters not. They can (and have been) subverted to the cause of the power-hungry, to the suffering of those propping up the hierarchy.

                              It's why I stopped seeing any contradiction in my previous stance against totalitarian communism and my more recent opposition to unchecked capitalism. At their core, they are harmful because people in charge use their institutions to rob people's freedoms, exploit their work, and sow misery. It's not about philosophy, but about power.
                              That's true too, though I'd say some systems and ideas have a higher probability to lead to tyranny, or tyrannical at their core, if you examine them closely. Usually the ones that have an "idealised" picture about society at their core and attempt to enforce society to conform to that, so it's also about philosophy, IMO. Capitalism, on the other hand, when, as you say, is going unchecked could lead to horrendous conditions too, albeit through different manners, I'd never argue about that and it's also undesirable.


                              If nothing worked, then let's think!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X