Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is the Methuselah Lazarus the same as the Biblical Lazarus?

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Penelope View Post
    Vysha you make some really good points. But I always thought Lamiae dated back to the Mythic Age of Greece, long before Jesus.
    I'd need to find where I got the idea that Lazarus was Embraced in the first century AD, but I'm 90% sure of it. If I'm correct, then the Lamia either had to be Embraced after that date (for obvious reasons), or their sire wasn't Lazarus.

    Originally posted by Penelope View Post
    Can I read Clanbook: Aabbt when you're done?
    It shall never be done, for it sits untouched and forgotten with my other projects.
    Last edited by Vysha; 01-24-2020, 04:54 AM.


    Writing up Clanbook: Aabbt

    Comment


    • #32
      Vysha probably for the best. Aren’t the Aabbt literally snakes?


      Don’t you even worry pretty darlin/ Cause I know you’ll find love again...

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Vysha View Post
        I'd need to find where I got the idea that Lazarus was Embraced in the first century AD, but I'm 90% sure of it. If I'm correct, then the Lamia either had to be Embraced after that date (for obvious reasons), or their sire wasn't Lazarus.


        It shall never be done, for it sits untouched and forgotten with my other projects.

        Lazarus given embrace date was mentioned in World of Darkness 2nd ed, but it must be a mistake either by the writer or deliberately a misdirection on his age due to:

        A) the age of the Lamia and of Angelique

        and

        B) no amount of Serpentis or Akhu can defeat Caias Koine who was older than Japeth if Lazarus was embraced in the first century AD and the fight being around 700 AD aprox, (therefore, being a 4th generation Cappadocian of 7 centuries of age against one with 8 millennia at least).

        - Saga

        Comment


        • #34
          @Saga thanks. I totally agree.


          Don’t you even worry pretty darlin/ Cause I know you’ll find love again...

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Saga View Post


            Lazarus given embrace date was mentioned in World of Darkness 2nd ed
            Right! Thank you, I knew I wasn't remembering things wrong.

            Originally posted by Saga View Post
            B) no amount of Serpentis or Akhu can defeat Caias Koine who was older than Japeth if Lazarus was embraced in the first century AD and the fight being around 700 AD aprox, (therefore, being a 4th generation Cappadocian of 7 centuries of age against one with 8 millennia at least).

            - Saga
            Eh. I'll agree on the first point, but this one's not as strong. One thing we all have to take as fact is that story-based fights between NPCs in canon never follow the same rules or trends as at-the-table fights. Antediluvians can be killed by a band of rabble with little planning one moment, then need to be weakened by days long battles, four K-J methuselah-equivalents and spirit bombs, just so the solar mirrors can finish it off. We see plenty of examples throughout the game where battles that should not have been won were definitely won, as well as battles that should have definitely been a slaughter end up being a victory.

            Lazzy beating Caias because the writers say so doesn't strike me as proof of age, just proof of writer intent.


            Writing up Clanbook: Aabbt

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Vysha View Post


              Lazzy beating Caias because the writers say so doesn't strike me as proof of age, just proof of writer intent.

              Yeah, Lazarus beating Caias is no more strange than Qarak beating Alexander, Nefer-Meri-Isis beating Set, Samiel slaying Tzimisce , Karl Schrekt beating to torpor Eigermann, or Tremere keeping Saulot in check in a mental battle lasted 800 years. Sometimes there is mystical macguffin, sometimes there is a bit of contest, and sometimes there is pretty much nothing and that's how things goes.

              That's how it goes. Power is not a linear thing and on the narrative side combat just doesn't work as on the dice side. That's always been a great problem of the setting: narrative and mechanics never worked together.
              Last edited by Undead rabbit; 01-25-2020, 03:31 PM.

              Comment


              • #37
                I always thought Samiel killing Tzimisce was pretty plausible. He was one of Saulot's oldest childer and one of the Second City's fiercest warriors. He quite likely had higher Strength, Melee, and physical Disciplines than many Antediluvians did.

                But what did that avail him? Samiel got killed and Tzimisce came back to (un)life. Samiel might've been able to put the guy down, but he wasn't able to keep him down.

                There are tons of circumstantial factors that can tip the scales in fights. No one in the WoD wants a fair fight. No one wants a "white room scenario" or arena combat that consists of two individuals whaling on each other until the one with lower traits drops. Qarakh for instance got some major backup from Telyavel and the Tremere in order to take on Alexander. Tactics, backup, and even dumb luck can allow individuals to punch vastly above (or below) their weight class. Mithras would've squashed Monty Coven like a bug in a fair fight, but the fact he'd just risen from torpor and spent his strength against a pack of Lupines still let Monty "beat" him. Karl Schrekt, too, almost certainly fought Erik during the day. Quite likely with help from other hunters, too--and, at least in my headcanon, with covert aid from Hardestadt. (It's not too many years after Erik's torpor in 1140 that Hardy declares himself monarch of the Fiefs of the Black Cross. I always figured Erik was a major competitor to Hardy, who used Schrekt as a catspaw to get rid of him.)

                If a neonate can take down a methuselah, anyway, I can easily buy a younger methuselah taking down an older methuselah. There were circumstances that made the fight a non-fair fight.

                What is missing is an explanation beyond "because Serpentis." I don't think just that would've been enough to tip the scales. But there could've been lots of other factors too.


                Blood and Bourbon, my New Orleans-based Vampire chronicle.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Undead rabbit View Post


                  Yeah, Lazarus beating Caias is no more strange than Qarak beating Alexander, Nefer-Meri-Isis beating Set, Samiel slaying Tzimisce , Karl Schrekt beating to torpor Eigermann, or Tremere keeping Saulot in check in a mental battle lasted 800 years. Sometimes there is mystical macguffin, sometimes there is a bit of contest, and sometimes there is pretty much nothing and that's how things goes.

                  That's how it goes. Power is not a linear thing and on the narrative side combat just doesn't work as on the dice side. That's always been a great problem of the setting: narrative and mechanics never worked together.
                  Qarakh beat Alexander because Deverra did Touch the Protector's Mind on him (probably an even more powerful version of it) and Alexander is 5 centuries younger than Mithras he hasn't been through all the warfare the Prince of London did, and while he is powerful, his most distinguishing ability throughout the novels was his speed (I guess Celerity 6 or 7). After diablerizing his sire and with the aid of the Telyavelic ritual, he did gain the upper hand in the battle because Alexander's overconfidence underestimated his opponent, something very common in powerful methuselahs.

                  Nefer-Meri-Isis vs. Set, well, that's a new addition from V20 Dark Ages, and I don't believe it to be that necessary to the canon story.

                  Samiel slaying the Eldest is plausible since the Antediluvian was in torpor and only reacted when the killing blow came. If you know and/or expect that the destruction of your physical body does not mean Final Death, I guess the reason the Salubri warriors came to the Eldest was actually something it expected and was looking forward to.

                  Karl Schrekt vs. Eigermann... this was from Berlin by Night, please, I'm not going to even apply logic here.

                  - Saga

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    So either dismissing canon or adjusting It. I could quote several more episode.: Moncada killing Silvester de Ruiz, Kemintiri escaping Set, Arikel being chased by Tammuz and Gilgamesh, Lucinde escaping Kemintiri control, Bell killing Karsh, Claudio Giovanni slaying Japhet, Caius killing Antonius, Regina Blake defeating Kemintiri, Dracula beating Jamal, Sir Matthew Lubbock being captured, Nahir defeated by Zamra, Vykos killing Symeon, Germaine surviving Petrodon, Koban killing Noriz, Durga Syn not being utterly crushed by Babà Yaga, Lados surviving Camilla, the Romans beating Carthage lead by Troile and so on.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Lugoj killing Byelobog.

                      It's almost like younger vampires killing older vampires is a central part of the game.


                      Blood and Bourbon, my New Orleans-based Vampire chronicle.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by False Epiphany View Post
                        Lugoj killing Byelobog.

                        It's almost like younger vampires killing older vampires is a central part of the game.
                        Heh. That's actually kind of the point behind this derailing; just because Lazzy beat up Caias doesn't imply a single thing about Lazzy's age or power level. Old kindred get beat by young kindred. It goes all the way back to the Ante's taking on the second gen kindred (though they did have a numerical advantage). Age and generation have nothing on narrative desires. We see it from the earliest myths of the kindred all the way to modern times. So why should Lazzy v Caias be treated differently?

                        Originally posted by Saga View Post
                        Lazarus given embrace date was mentioned in World of Darkness 2nd ed, but it must be a mistake either by the writer or deliberately a misdirection on his age due to:

                        A) the age of the Lamia and of Angelique
                        So with my books on-hand now, I was able to get more info on Angelique that helps support Lazzy being Embraced in the 1st Century AD; Angelique was Embraced in a Christian (Coptic) monastery. For there to be a Christian monastery, there must logically already be a Christian religion, which means the story of Christ already happened.

                        Regarding the Lamia, nothing about their story suggests any kind of time period, save that Lazarus must already exist. If all printed evidence suggests he came about in the 1st century, there's no reason to believe the Lamia predates that.

                        So really, the only oddity of a post-AD Laz-Laz is his defeating a much-older Caias which... Really isn't that odd, given the history of older kindred being killed by younger ones.

                        So yeah, VtM Lazu is probably the direct inspiration, if not the actual person, mentioned in the WoD's version of the Bible.


                        Writing up Clanbook: Aabbt

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Undead rabbit View Post
                          So either dismissing canon or adjusting It. I could quote several more episode.: Moncada killing Silvester de Ruiz, Kemintiri escaping Set, Arikel being chased by Tammuz and Gilgamesh, Lucinde escaping Kemintiri control, Bell killing Karsh, Claudio Giovanni slaying Japhet, Caius killing Antonius, Regina Blake defeating Kemintiri, Dracula beating Jamal, Sir Matthew Lubbock being captured, Nahir defeated by Zamra, Vykos killing Symeon, Germaine surviving Petrodon, Koban killing Noriz, Durga Syn not being utterly crushed by Babà Yaga, Lados surviving Camilla, the Romans beating Carthage lead by Troile and so on.
                          Monçada had True Faith in 3, if he underestimate his Dominate over his childe just once that would've been his doom, just as Lucita overcome his bond to his sire (even though that came with the aid of bonding herself to Fatima, both being 6th generation).

                          I'd choose to ignore Katherine of Montpellier history of the clan due to historical and actual misdirections.

                          Lucinde went through Abandon the Fetters to break her bond with Kemintiri, then writers created Lucinde's Revenge in V20 to continue to justify her adamant willpower against metal disciplines, plus, two successes in Path of Blood 3 makes her equal to Kemintiri in generation.

                          Bell didn't kill Karsh, he staked him along with Xaviar after the methuselah's overconfidence betrayed him, plus Bell already diablerized the "Overseer" when he fought Karsh in the boat and who knows who the Overseer really was?! If there is another claim of him doing this in V5, I guess writers chose to ignore this even though Lucita couldn't find any trace of Jalan in Gehenna The Final Night (following the events of Clan Novel Brujah trilogy).

                          Claudius Giovanni diablerinzing Japeth, well he didn't... back in 2nd ed when that happened there was this Necromancy power called Inurement that prevented such thing from happening. I guess this is the very reason why he failed doing so.

                          Caius only staked Antonius, and him being among the youngest of the Antediluvian's childer (his pseudonym is "Gaul", therefore he most probably is from 5 century BC at most, which makes him younger than Alexander of Athens, and older than Maltheas), I don't discard it as possible mostly due to Constantinople being a more narrative scenario than a mechanical one. Antonius feeling utmost jealousy of the Dracon and making him prey of his own rage frequently, his love for Michael might probably made him miss his childe intentions.

                          Regina didn't beat Kemintiri, she throwed her an item having True Faith, that harmed her and the whole narrative going on when that happened (Anton Wellig's death at the hands of Mithras, the Prince of London blaming her for their childe-to-be Noushad betrayalm, plus she was stabbed by Eleanor Krevcheski before that, not that that actually harmed her).

                          Dracula beating Jamal... that one I'm extremely intrigued on how he did it.

                          Sir Matthew Lubbock being captured... well, Hardestadt and the founders "arrested" Augustus Giovanni right after he diablerized Cappadocius, so such things happened.

                          Zamra only threw a fire lamp into his sire's face, that reactions can happen, he wasn't defeated, Nahir only succumbed to Rotschrekt back then and chose to wait.

                          Vykos diablerie of Symeon, what I wouldn't give for Myranda Kalis to write a piece on that!

                          Germaine surviving Petrodon... that can be possible.

                          Koban killing Noriz, well, it broke the bonds and then it was a backstabbing affair that happened to many voivodes beyond Noriz (Byelobog, Razkoljina). With the aid of the Lost Tribe, many fell in those times.

                          Durga Syn surviving Baba Yaga... systematically that would be impossible, but Russia is a ridiculously HUGE country, moving away from her and distractions might had aid her in crucial moments.

                          Lados, the one in Children of the Revolution? I went through it and though it was ok, I never tried to make sense of his story into the canon background.

                          Romans winning against Carthage was a historical event in which writers had to accomodate towards what happened in history. Rome became extremely tight on their politics against Carthage after the Second Punic war to provoke an excuse for total extermination. Carthage knew this and tried to keep tribute to prevent that (tribute being their children, weapons and slaves) decimating their sustenance. Rome lost two naval battles but after, it was slaughter, mostly happening by day. How did they defeat an Antediluvian? They didn't, The narrative of Troile's last moments with Moloch can create a magnificent story. It is a shame that Brujah Chronicles was never published because it was addressing why that happened (it was the True Brujah that invited the Baali to Carthage in the first place).

                          - Saga

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Vysha View Post

                            Heh. That's actually kind of the point behind this derailing; just because Lazzy beat up Caias doesn't imply a single thing about Lazzy's age or power level. Old kindred get beat by young kindred. It goes all the way back to the Ante's taking on the second gen kindred (though they did have a numerical advantage). Age and generation have nothing on narrative desires. We see it from the earliest myths of the kindred all the way to modern times. So why should Lazzy v Caias be treated differently?



                            So with my books on-hand now, I was able to get more info on Angelique that helps support Lazzy being Embraced in the 1st Century AD; Angelique was Embraced in a Christian (Coptic) monastery. For there to be a Christian monastery, there must logically already be a Christian religion, which means the story of Christ already happened.

                            Regarding the Lamia, nothing about their story suggests any kind of time period, save that Lazarus must already exist. If all printed evidence suggests he came about in the 1st century, there's no reason to believe the Lamia predates that.

                            So really, the only oddity of a post-AD Laz-Laz is his defeating a much-older Caias which... Really isn't that odd, given the history of older kindred being killed by younger ones.

                            So yeah, VtM Lazu is probably the direct inspiration, if not the actual person, mentioned in the WoD's version of the Bible.

                            I agree with you on the facts, though remember that a single drop of blood from Lazarus using Dissolve the Flesh 5 (Grave's Decay) destroyed a 5th generation methuselah 3 centuries older than him if he was embraced around the first century AD. Either I'm right on him being older than such claimed embrace date or Andrew Bates is wrong when Alexia Theusa was destroyed by him.

                            Let's just say that Lazarus was embraced in the first century AD. So, then Byzar is his elder, can you believe that someone with stats mightier that Japeth be defeated with someone with stats like Mahatma from Children of the Night?

                            - Saga
                            Last edited by Saga; 01-26-2020, 03:41 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Saga View Post
                              Let's just say that Lazarus was embraced in the first century AD. So, then Byzar is his elder, can you believe that someone with stats mightier that Japeth be defeated with someone with stats like Mahatma from Children of the Night?

                              - Saga
                              You won't like the answer. I don't like it either. But...

                              Yes.

                              I absolutely do believe it, because the game has told me time and again throughout its history that NPCs in the narrative behave very differently than what the mechanics of the game say they should. We see plenty of examples of NPCs who do what mechanically cannot be possible; Say what you like about Samiel v the Eldest, but the one of the two examples of a fight with an antediluvian we have required four methusela-level KJs, unknown other supernatural beings, two magic nuke bombs and supertech sun mirrors to defeat it in a fight. The other had just one methusela-level swordsman. Neither [Tzimisce] nor [Ravnos] strike me as warrior types, but one took on four Samiels and some footsoldiers without dying, and the other just needed one.

                              On the other hand, all evidence points to the same conclusion; Lazarus was Embraced in the first century. His story says he was. His childe's story says she was. He's implied to be the Biblical Lazarus, which places him in the same time frame. But yeah, his fighting weight appears to outstrip his age. Just like others before him. Just like others after him. Just like Giovanni, who only 400-ish years after his Embrace organized the near-genocide of an entire clan. Just like Tremere, who did the same in even less time while also seeing his fledgling clan survive being hunted by the Tzimisce, proto-Hermetics, some Gangrel and Nosferatu, and whatever else. Just to pull two really big ones out there. VtM is full of NPCs punching well above their stat-based weight class and coming out on top, and the clear reason is because the narrative doesn't follow tabletop rules.

                              My question then is why should Lazarus be considered any different, just to justify him being older than everything says he is?


                              Writing up Clanbook: Aabbt

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Vysha View Post

                                You won't like the answer. I don't like it either. But...

                                Yes.

                                I absolutely do believe it, because the game has told me time and again throughout its history that NPCs in the narrative behave very differently than what the mechanics of the game say they should. We see plenty of examples of NPCs who do what mechanically cannot be possible; Say what you like about Samiel v the Eldest, but the one of the two examples of a fight with an antediluvian we have required four methusela-level KJs, unknown other supernatural beings, two magic nuke bombs and supertech sun mirrors to defeat it in a fight. The other had just one methusela-level swordsman. Neither [Tzimisce] nor [Ravnos] strike me as warrior types, but one took on four Samiels and some footsoldiers without dying, and the other just needed one.

                                On the other hand, all evidence points to the same conclusion; Lazarus was Embraced in the first century. His story says he was. His childe's story says she was. He's implied to be the Biblical Lazarus, which places him in the same time frame. But yeah, his fighting weight appears to outstrip his age. Just like others before him. Just like others after him. Just like Giovanni, who only 400-ish years after his Embrace organized the near-genocide of an entire clan. Just like Tremere, who did the same in even less time while also seeing his fledgling clan survive being hunted by the Tzimisce, proto-Hermetics, some Gangrel and Nosferatu, and whatever else. Just to pull two really big ones out there. VtM is full of NPCs punching well above their stat-based weight class and coming out on top, and the clear reason is because the narrative doesn't follow tabletop rules.

                                My question then is why should Lazarus be considered any different, just to justify him being older than everything says he is?
                                The answer is simple. Cappadocian have a history of letting the world know something while it truly isn't.

                                Fact A: Claudius diablerized Japeth, which wasn't entirely true.

                                Fact B: Cappadocius was diablerized by Augustus Giovanni, which turned to not be entirely true.

                                Fact C: Byzar believed Sargon to be his sire, which was a lie

                                Fact D: "The Dead Man" from Giovanni Chronicles mentions Constancia to be his sire, yet in DA revised the Dracon metions that Constancia never saw Rome's golden age, which makes it contradictory on The Dead Man's testimony of the time it rained blood in Egypt.

                                Fact E: Mahatma claims Laodice to be his sire, which in truth, he perfectly knows that it was Cappadocius who sired him.

                                Fact F: The Capuchin was an enigmatic figure who aided the Giovanni from time to time, then in V20 it turned out to be a combination of Japeth/Lazarus/Byzar.

                                Fact G: Thomas Beckett Camden was the seneschal of London, the thing was he wasn't even called so, but he was also the lover of Mithras according to Fall of London.

                                Fact H: Thomas Beckett Camden perishing in 1680 turn out to not only be a lie, but that he somehow know a ritual that after his supposed final death, he is 5th now.... (Fall of London).

                                Vampire differs in its 5 editions and the writers always change the history without fully understanding the ramifications of those changes full imply. So, with all those half-truths about the Cappadocians, why would the one that make any sense, which is Lazarus age, be any different?

                                - Saga

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X