Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WIR 5E Anarchs

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

  • Originally posted by Grumpy RPG Reviews View Post
    A broad guide to how different factions of the Anarchs organize themselves would have been useful.
    A description of various Anarch factions has been a huge gaping hole in the game since it was first published. It's fine that the Anarchs are defined as "not the Camarilla", but that's a gigantic hole. And many different Anarchs will have their own ideas as to what should replace it. I believe this is what many of the original game players expected Los Angeles By Night to provide, and it didn't.

    The best attempt at filling this gap that I ever saw was an extremely old website of someone's home chronicle back in the late nineties. I don't think it's around anymore. But it did a good job of taking certain elements of the LABN sourcebook and adding a lot more while removing all the dead weight.

    Of course, even the old LA Free State is not the totality of the Anarch Movement. So a great sourcebook would not only cover the factions in LA, it would cover the major factions elsewhere (such as the remnants of Maldavis's attempt to overthrow Lodin, and those in Europe) as well as interesting factions elsewhere not currently popular but offering a distinct alternative.

    I think it should also cover one of the fundamental problems of the Anarchs, and that is as vampires get older, many of them would begin to gravitate back to the Camarilla.

    I would also like to see examined what I think constitutes a big part of the Anarch population - young vampires who actually aren't revolutionaries trying to overthrow the system, but "adolescents" acting out against a system they don't understand and which does not serve their interests. But they shy away from actual murderous violence. They're content to carve aside a small domain for they and their friends, and that's it. And a corollary to this group are those that actually are criminals who merely use the movement as a cover.

    Real groups that the ST can either use themselves, or use a variant inspired by them. The Renegades supplement in Wraith suffered from the same problem.

    I think the VtR sects could certainly fill part of the hole (as you suggested), but it's obviously insufficient. STs need to provide a lot of their own creativity here. I think if 5-10 of the top quality posters on the Vampire forum could get together in person over beers on a weekend, we could probably create a kickass brainstorming session that could be the start of a real sourcebook for STs. I'd be willing to buy the beer.

    Comment


    • ANARCHS UNBOUND remains a far superior book.


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

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Grumpy RPG Reviews View Post
        Another improvement would have been to suggest major trends in Anarch communities. For the same of simplicity I would take inspiration from the sects in Vampire the Requiem. So...[LIST][*]Carthian Movement = Community and socialist Anarchs. They are often in, or from, formally community or socialist countries, such as Russia, East Germany, Cuba, etc.[*]Circle of the Crone = Baharists, and House of Carna types who have gone full Anarch.[*]Invictus = Camarilla by another name.[*]Lancea et Sanctum = Religion Anarchs, Lasombra Anarchs, etc.[*]Ordo Dracul = House Ipsissimus Tremere.
        Lancea et Sanctum = resurgent Cainite Heresy/Church of Caine.

        But, yeah. One problem with V5 is that they have to shoe-horn many of these factions in because they weren't present in the game's canon earlier. House Carna is new as of Beckett's Jyhard Diary. The Cainite Heresy is an old group that's being revived. The Camarilla has recently decided it's going to be far more exclusive.

        I don't think the VtR covenants are an inherently bad idea. More sects than the Camarilla, Sabbat, and independent clans gives players and GMs more options (the really obscure groups like the Tal'Mahe'Ra and Inconnu don't count). The Camarilla and (especially) Sabbat have always had tons of sub-factions and never lacked for internal politics, but these are murkier than distinct organizations with their own names, structures, and histories. They're harder for players and GMs to utilize if they aren't extensively familiar with the setting, so you run into criticism that "the Camarilla is too big tent and too boring."

        VtR made the five covenants one of its setting's most core elements and gave them tons of grounding and history. With the Masquerade "covenants," they are newer both in-setting and IRL, and still occupy a hazy area between VtR covenants and the game's previous political sub-factions. People draw VtR covenant comparisons, but they still aren't as intrinsic to the setting as a "covenant" section on PC character sheets.

        I think V5 would have benefited more from either not trying to (half-)recreate the covenants, or going all the way and just retconning them into always being a large part of the setting.

        The fan outcry would've been even bigger, though. There wasn't really a win option for White Wolf.


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

        Comment


        • I'm just pointing to the VtR covenants for the sake of simplicity. There is a lot of non-mechanical info available on them already, so players and ST can just plug in that info. While WW/OP could not have explicitly used the VtR covenants,they should have given the Anarchs more structure and provided coherant internal factions.

          Comment


          • It's an issue they've had for most of the game's history, really. The Anarchs are defined by being against the Camarilla more than they are by being for anything.

            They've never been described as anything more than a loosely aligned group of anti-authoritarian individuals, so decades of material has been spent fleshing out the Camarilla's and Sabbat's cultures and internal structures. The Anarchs have a big deficit to make up.

            I applaud V5's writers for trying, but it seems like the Anarchs got the short end of the stick again next to the Camarilla.


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

            Comment


            • Originally posted by False Epiphany View Post
              It's an issue they've had for most of the game's history, really. The Anarchs are defined by being against the Camarilla more than they are by being for anything.
              The most obvious sub-factions for Anarchs would be:

              1) A Jeremy MacNeil style libertarian-ideologue paradise which only works with the right people, and they ruthlessly throw out anyone who doesn't fit. These people are probably the most romantic group with the best PR, but simply can't work for any extended group of vampires as it relies too much on the individual virtues of a race of bloodsucking parasites. There's likely many failed attempts at this with a few working domains scattered throughout the world who keep in contact with one another.

              2) A faction advocating essentially a reformed Camarilla with more civil rights and more democratic decision making. This is probably what Maldavis attempted. Sounds good in theory, but probably too bureaucratic, unresponsive to change, and will be hijacked by busy bodies. It's effectively the Homeowner's Association of vampire politics. It's also the one most likely to be hijacked by the Camarilla itself.

              3) Debating clubs of high humanity vampires that complain about injustice because they are high humanity, but don't do anything about it because they are high humanity. Unlikely to have real domains they control as opposed to a few buildings they hang out. There are probably many different versions of this. Hind's Socialists is just one example.

              4) Ganglord criminals who don't want to be told what to do. Juggler's Nihilists is an example as are most of the Barons in Los Angeles By Night. Lots of different versions of these. A problem with LABN is that to showcase the Anarch movement, the sourcebook should only have had one or two of these. Like organized crime, there might be one particularly expansive group with Baronies established in multiple domains, whose local rulers are answerable back to the head organization.

              5) A soviet/council style government inspired by the original Russian soviets - local autonomous groups with everyone participating in decisions, electing and removing temporary leaders, and organizing cooperatives. This is probably the origin of the Brujah Council. I imagine this was a popular style in the early twentieth century until its shortcomings become obvious. But it probably reappears in a variety of formats, all espousing a form of direct democracy. This easily deteriorates to mob rule and then demagoguery and finally dictatorship. I suspect some format of this is a perennial favorite of the Anarchs who are always surprised when it blows up in their face.

              6) An extremely charismatic figure with great leadership abilities takes over. The person is brilliant and reforming, but turns into Napoleon instead of George Washington. Essentially a Prince in all but name. Might be called a Baron, but the difference between him and other Barons is he is not a criminal wishing to escape punishment. He pulls in elements of the libertarians, reformists, and debaters into a synthesized real government in theory - but in practice it is him being Prince. This could happen a lot in the local level, but is less likely to become a mass movement unless the leader pulls off something spectacular. Something like overthrowing Lodin could have produced such a figure. These people likely have some real ambition and idea to completely replace the Inner Circle and the Camarilla's system of conclaves and justicars. Potentially an interesting faction, but the ST would need to produce an alternative style of government. This might lend itself to cribbing from one or more of the VtR sects.

              7) An occult oriented group, more spiritually aligned. This could be a cult. It might be cover for a group of Infernalists. But it combines spiritual attraction with ruthless action against their enemies because of religious fanaticism, so it rises above a mere debating club. There is at least one guru. But the guru might have an aide that provides the leadership genius. These groups think they are on the verge of taking over, but don't realize their appeal is limited.

              8) Mere criminal thuggery that does not even rise to the level of organized crime. Not so much an organized faction, but it represents a large bulk of Anarchs especially those willing to take violent actions. Much of Juggler's Nihilists were this. I'd also put in Smiling Jack. Still, small gangs of provocateurs who consider themselves an "elite" strike force could make a name for themselves as they go from domain to domain, "inspiring" people to "resist". Otherwise, they are just local thugs perhaps with a gang name.

              What obvious factions did I miss?

              There would always be local variations of these. However, any Anarch sourcebook would describe various large and established factions (as well as historical ones that no longer exist) so that STs wouldn't need to create the details on their own. The emphasis would be on what specifically they are trying to replace the Camarilla and the Princes with. Some might only think locally. Others more comprehensively. Some would be theoretically possible. Others completely unrealistic. Many more would be incomplete, but a work in progress.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Black Fox View Post
                What obvious factions did I miss?
                The Dude: They abide. These are the ones who have checked out of the jyhad rat race as much as possible. Or they try to check out, but keep getting roped back in.

                Comment


                • Different anarch 'factions':
                  -Cults (overlaps heavily with other kinds of stuff)
                  -support groups (run by the settites if they're interesting, run by the Baali if they're really interesting, and run by the Ventrue if you should actually join)
                  -Gangs.
                  -Camarilla lite
                  -Camarilla reformed.
                  -Good ol' nights vampires-who-want-to-return to how it was before the Cam.
                  -Heavy handers, those that want a lot of control in the mortal community, and try to get likeminded vampires in on their schemes.
                  -Libertarians, IE people who neither understand politics nor economics.
                  -"communists" (The council is looking out for your interests, trust us. Now strip!)
                  -Light handers, who mostly just want to be left alone, and agree to leave others alone, and maybe have some form of mediation.
                  -"This place is mine now fuck off"
                  -Totally not the spies from some other group, no-sir-ee.
                  -Wizard study groups.
                  -Incestuous families
                  -uniquely brainwashed lineages.
                  -Viniculum friendship circles.
                  -Groups emulating modern Companies.

                  Things that would never happen-
                  "real" communism (because vampires)
                  libertarianism (because people)
                  Anarcho-socialism (because neighbors)
                  Tremere who aren't at least unwittingly working for the pyramid.
                  Nosferatu getting treated well
                  Nosferatu not being bitter
                  Nosferatu not planting exposives beneath all your havens
                  Nosferatu not detonating those explosives at the agreed upon time.


                  Throw me/White wolf some money with Quietus: Drug Lord, Poison King
                  There's more coming soon. Pay what ya want.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Black Fox View Post
                    1) A Jeremy MacNeil style libertarian-ideologue paradise...
                    Call them the Utopianists or John Galts. MacNeil is the obvious poster boy for this camp. The Red Question also falls here, despite the amount of shade they throw at MacNeil, and Marguerite Foccart too. They're disproportionately represented among the Anarchs in the popular mind, but I'm hard-pressed to think of many others. Vampires seem to have wised up to the limits of their philosophy after how the California Free State worke out.

                    Ironically, their philosophy is also perhaps the most compatible with Camarilla elders, because it essentially comes down to might makes right. They're also only really a problem to the Camarilla when they are actively fomenting revolts against princes. The justicars were likely very happy that MacNeil went so out of his way to prevent the Free State from establishing a central authority.

                    2) A faction advocating essentially a reformed Camarilla...
                    Call them the Reformists. They are probably the oldest (organized) Anarch faction and were etablished after the Convention of Thorns by Anarchs who chose to bend knee rather than join the proto-Sabbat. They would've chosen to (quietly) remain in association with one another to better survive under the new Camarilla and to monitor whether its elders upheld the Convention's treaty. 500 years later, the faction's surving founders are probably indistinguishable from Camarilla elders themselves. Some might even be princes who rule supposedly "Anarch" cities. They are likely one of the more structured factions, with an executive committee of ruling elders and designated agents in whichever cities they have a presence. Local Anarchs agree to abide by a common set of goals and principles in return for support.

                    Maldavis is obviously the poster girl for this faction. For all the noise Chicago Anarchs make about her revolt, her goal was basically to replace as Lodin as prince, all the way down to being covertly backed by the same elder puppeteers. It's hard to see her being a very different ruler after a few decades in power.

                    Critias and Tyler also seem like members of this faction, as does Berlin's Wilhelm Waldburg. They are the most "respectable" group of the Anarchs, largely because they have the most elders and ultimately represent the smallest threat to the Camarilla's status quo.

                    3) Debating clubs of high humanity vampires that complain about injustice because they are high humanity, but don't do anything about it because they are high humanity. Unlikely to have real domains they control as opposed to a few buildings they hang out. There are probably many different versions of this. Hind's Socialists is just one example.
                    I always felt like the Socialists were underused. Their write-up in the coteries section really caught my eye. They ostensibly meet to plan attacks against Lodin's rule, but instead play poker. (This was one of those great little touches that helped the book's characters feel like real people; yes, they can still enjoy poker with each other.) They believe Gehenna will soon arrive and that the only hope for survival is for the Anarchs to unite. The other two Anarch coteries look up to them, and they rarely participate in violence, but shrink from nothing when they do. Modius is also apparently a member of the coterie, and Critias is supposed to have a lot of sway over them.

                    So cue all but one of them getting killed off in 2e.

                    Hank Cave and Anita Wainwright also fit as members of this "Moralists" faction.

                    4) Ganglord criminals who don't want to be told what to do.
                    LA by Night suffered because it was '90s LA and the authors decided "gangs!" had to be absolutely everything about the city.

                    There are probably a lot of Anarchs who belong to this faction and thumb their noses at the central group. They are vampires Embraced from underprivileged backgrounds and/or by underprivileged sires who just want to spend eternity doing whatever they want. They only fight against the Camarilla insofar as it infringes on their freedom, which is often.

                    5) A soviet/council style government inspired by the original Russian soviets...
                    Call them the Populists. This faction seems like the go-to one for more civic-minded Anarchs. Okay, you don't want a baron who's a prince by another name, and you don't want a total abdication of central authority like MacNeil espouses, so what's the alternative? Democracy. Some local groups might have chief executives, others might have elected councils, and others might be direct democracies, but their core idea is putting some degree of political power into every Anarch's hands. There might be an old guard of members who are heavily influencedby Marxism, like Salvador Garcia, but I can see this faction coming into its own during the 21st centuries as the Reformists and Utopianists increasingly prove they're full of crap.

                    6) An extremely charismatic figure with great leadership abilities takes over...
                    Call them the Baronists, as this faction sounds like basically the most successful Anarch barons: ones who've built up personlity cults around themselves and rule their domains absolutely. Less successful barons rule as princes-lite and are resented by their subjects. Their common thread, and their main difference from the Reformists, is that they don't want to be part of the Camarilla. They want every baron to be a law unto themelves and answerable to no one, though some of them may try to present a democratic facade to their subjects: e.g., rigged directed elections, elected "primogen" who supposedly act as checks on their power, or by serving as powers behind the throne to puppet elected barons. They can start to look like the Populists, but the main difference is that there's no good faith effort to have an actual working democracy. Many Populists become Baronists over time and the exact line between them can be blurry.

                    This faction could appeal to some to very old and traditionalist princes in Europe, ironically, who want to rule their domains absolutely and resent the Camarilla for interfering with them. Mithras, Gustav Breidenstein, and the Oradea League are some examples there.

                    On the more "moderate" end of the spectrum, you find Kindred like Isaac Abrams here. He rules Hollywood with style and taste, and other Anarchs admire him for it, but there's no question that his authority is absolute within its boundaries. Louis Fortier is another example. The most successful Baronists claim smaller domains within cities, rather than trying to extend their rule over all Anarchs within a city, and have charismatic personalities that come off to their younger sect-mates as "cool uncles."

                    7) An occult oriented group, more spiritually aligned...
                    As of Rites of Blood, the Anarchs have a lot of blood sorcerers. This faction claims the largest number of them, and so is one of the most valued factions by the others. Otherwise, it seems like a "big tent" faction for Anarchs with unusual spiritual beliefs who wouldn't be tolerated anywhere else. Call them the Spiritualists. Their unifying thread is freedom of belief. Anyone can find a home in their faction, so long as they're willing to help defend their brethren. Their best members are Golconda seekers; their worst members find reasons to justify diablerie and other socially unacceptable predilections.

                    I agree the group is probably cover for infernalists or something else pretty foul. I can see them being an increasingly desirable home to infernalists in the 21st century, as unlike the Sabbat, there is no Inquisition to root them out.

                    8) Mere criminal thuggery that does not even rise to the level of organized crime...
                    Call them the Resistance, distinguished from the ganglord criminals in that they want to tear down the Camarilla, everywhere, rather than be left alone to do their own thing. The line between them can get blurry when the local prince is oppressive enough. The Resistance are the archetypal Anarchs who stand against the Camarilla but don't actually stand for anything themselves. They just want to raise hell.

                    What obvious factions did I miss?
                    Prometheans/neo-Carthaginians who advocate abandoning the Masquerade and coexisting with mortals. At the most extreme end, you have "fundamentalist" Prometheans who want to do away with the Masquerade on a world-wide scale and turn the setting into one like True Blood's. Very few Anarchs believe this is a realistical goal. More common, but still a minority, are "homestead" Promtheans who want to establish isolated towns or compounds in the middle of nowhere, not unlike cults, that vampires can exist openly among. Most modern-day Prometheans are probably "localists" or cleavers who simply don't believe in the Masquerade's concept of absolute secrecy: they want to have friends and families and mortal lives without needing to lie through their teeth all of the time. They believe vampires and mortals can coexist on a small scale (spouses, parents, close friends or siblings, etc.) and hold that the Masquerade is becoming increasingly untenable in the 2020s anyway.

                    Thin-blood and Caitiff equalists. They're introduced in Time of Thin Blood as the Unbound, a collection of vampires who essentially profess not to care about clan, lineage, or generation, and to believe all vampires inherently equal. Some may extend this belief to thin-bloods and some may not. Your average Kindred off the street thinks the larger Anarch Movement shares these beliefs, but they really don't. The Unbound make a habit of calling out their fellows' biases and hypocrisy just as much as the Camarilla's; isn't it funny how low-generation elder Brujah always wind up in positions of power?

                    However, any Anarch sourcebook would describe various large and established factions (as well as historical ones that no longer exist) so that STs wouldn't need to create the details on their own. The emphasis would be on *what specifically they are trying to replace the Camarilla and the Princes with.* Some might only think locally. Others more comprehensively. Some would be theoretically possible. Others completely unrealistic. Many more would be incomplete, but a work in progress.
                    I think this is a valuable thing to emphasize. Do these factions ultimately have fully thought-out alternatives to the Camarilla, or are they just rebels defined by their opposition to it?

                    Looking over the above factions, I'd say these ones fall into the former category. Put them in charge of a city, and they will know what they want its political structure to look like:

                    Utopianists: "Survival of the fittest" total anarchy.
                    Reformists: A fairer and more egalitarian Camarilla.
                    Populists: Democracy for the Damned.
                    Baronists: Princes by another name, only not beholden to the Camarilla.

                    And these ones fall into the latter category. Put them in charge of a city, and they will still need to ask, "Okay, so how do we actually want to run things?":

                    Spiritualists: Big tent group that tolerates vampires of almost all spiritual beliefs.
                    Debating clubs: Goody two-shoes vampires.
                    Gangland criminals: Want to be left alone to do their own thing.
                    Resistance: Destroy the Camarilla.
                    Prometheans: Coexist with mortals.
                    Unbound: Equality for vampires of all clans and generations.

                    Some of these groups, like the Spiritualists and the Prometheans, can have complex philosophies with histories going back thousands of years, and which significantly guide a given Anarch's actions. But what none of these groups answer is what should replace the Camarilla after it's removed from power.

                    On the other hand, perhaps they don't need to either. A Promethean who tells their spouse they're a vampire can be a Utopianist, a Reformist, a Populist, or a Baronist. Salvador Garcia is a Populist who also takes the fight to the Camarilla outside L.A. as a Resistance fighter.



                    Another thing I'd consider in any Anarch book is how successful actually are these groups? Can they effect lasting positive change in Kindred society, or will they just turn into the Camarila after enough years if they don't turn into LA-style failed states? The Utopianists seem pretty full of crap, given LA's fate; the Reformists get co-opted by elders; the Baronists are just princes by another name; and the Populists can easily turn into Baronists or Utopianists if a central executive seizes power or if mob rule gets out of hand.

                    Maybe that's as things should be. Anarchs Unbound, which I'd consider VtM's best Anarch book, has "the hypocrisy of change" as its driving theme. But are the Kindred really incapable of anything better than the Camarilla? I think you need some (currently) successful Anarch states to give the others something to strive for. Louis Fortier and Isaac Abrams show that even Baronist model can work; most of their subjects seem content enough. The only faction which strikes me as completely nonviable are the Utopianists, at least on a city-wide scale. More than anything else, I feel like the Anarchs would benefit having more self-aware members who acknowledge that different political systems will work better (or worse) in different cities.



                    I would also emphasize in any Anarch sourcebook, finally, what coexistence with the Camarilla looks like. I would venture that in most games, the Camarilla is in power, not the Anarchs. But most cities have an Anarch population, so what does that look like? Do they manage to coexist, or are they just troublemaking malcontents facing constant persecution? That last take may be iconic, but it effectively makes all of their political beliefs moot and turns them into guerilla fighters.

                    In my current chronicle, the local Anarchs have a section of the city mostly to their own, where direct democracy is the rule of law. They decide community-wide issues through popular vote and have a (limited) constitution that attempts to provide structure an framework to meetings so they don't degenerate into mob rules. The Anarchs pay fealty to the prince and must abide by his laws, but receive a moderate amount of self-government in a "state government vs. federal government"-esque scenario. Two Anarch-sympathetic primogen who live in the area act as "foreign ministers" to the prince and are looked up to by most of the Anarch population as informal leaders.

                    I had to think up basically everything on my own for that setup. Existing Anarch sourcebooks are geared towards what the Anarchs look like when they're in power. But what about when they're not? Even in Chicago and Bloodlines, the game's two settings with (IMO) the best Anarch characters, there's very little sense of how the Anarchs actually organize their society on a night-to-night basis when they're not fighting the Camarilla. They are the underdogs, and sticking it to The Man is ultimately what they are about, but it's a boring setup to cast them as La Resistance engaged in violent insurrections every single time. It's no surprise gamers find the Camarilla and Sabbat more interesting when those sects have more culture and a stronger sense of how members spend their time when not fighting the designated bad guy.


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

                    Comment


                    • While I called them "factions", these are actually just classifications or categories that real factions could be slotted in.

                      A real faction would have a name to identify them, some kind of organization, some kind of coherent program or propaganda, a real history behind them, and some kind of membership.

                      Groups or factions that fall in the same category could be diametrically opposed to one another. There could be two Caitiff warlords trying to organize a pro-Caitiff movement, but oppose each other because of personality conflicts between the leaders or real doctrinal differences. Or they may not be enemies, but since one is based in LA but the other in Europe, they are really separate groups. Likewise, two reformist groups could disagree on what needs to be changed to make the Camarilla or similar system better.

                      In a sourcebook that dealt within the details of this, it'd give us real factions with members, history, and some sort of program and organization. Not just a theoretical breakdown.

                      The old Sabbat guides also gave us a theoretical breakdown of politics within it - Loyalists, Moderates, Status Quo, etc. But they were just vague descriptors as opposed to any real idea of how these groups acted and were organized. Are these primarily pack based? Or were there any real organization between some of these blocs? How exactly did Pander unite and lead his group of Caitiff? I believe one reason it was easy for Revised to ignore this and create its "Sword of Caine" is that we were never given such details. It's all up to the STs how to develop it. That's not a bad idea since it empowers STs. But some examples should be given to inspire creative approaches.

                      Originally posted by False Epiphany View Post
                      Critias and Tyler also seem like members of this faction, as does Berlin's Wilhelm Waldburg. They are the most "respectable" group of the Anarchs, largely because they have the most elders and ultimately represent the smallest threat to the Camarilla's status quo.
                      I do think there is an important distinction between Anarchs who are really advocating a kind of reform of the Camarilla - and like you I would provisionally classify Maldavis as one, though she might disagree, and Anarch sympathizers within the Camarilla like Critias and Tyler (though Tyler is a special case, being extremely self serving and someone who could be classified as belonging in all three groups - Anarch, Sabbat, and Camarilla!).

                      They have many things in common and likely help each other, but Critias never broke away from the sect and still lends his power and influence to support it. He's just willing to occasionally (and secretly) support radicals like Maldavis when it supports his interests to do so. (I assume Critias is still Camarilla in V5, but if he isn't any longer than this is just his stance prior to V5).

                      Maldavis would likely explain that she is not attempting to reform the Camarilla, but replace it. It's just that for all practical purposes, it's the Camarilla in a reformed way. I suspect there is a big overlap of these groups if they both show up during Conclaves. And I think Maldavis would be an example of an Anarch who would be willing to use the Conclave system as a means to advance her agenda while other Anarchs would refuse completely.

                      Comment


                      • If I may throw an additional faction:

                        Rulership by Coterie

                        One of the essential problems of the Camarilla is that it is a strict heirarchy that imposes a feudal system on vampires that insist on attempting to reign in the impulses of incredibly dangerous parasitic creatures. Tyranny is the only way that vampire government expresses itself and any sort of rulership is going to brutal as well as evil.

                        The Anarchs actually have the alternative of rulership by leveled equality and the Camarilla refuses to believe this works. In fact, it's very easy to work and doesn't require a Prince-like Baron if you just simply make it a bunch of vampires working together. Not every vampire community is going to be like Chicago with 100-200 vampires living in the same Metropolitan district with courts, defined territories, and need for laws. For much of the world, it's much easier just to be a half-dozen to a couple of dozen vampires who all know each other and can generally work things out among themselves.

                        Now, "work things out among themselves" can mean "everyone will gang up on Dave, beat him into torpor, and toss him on a rooftop" but that isn't actually THAT broken of a system compared to the way the Camarilla does it. If no vampire is significantly stronger than the others or able to dominate them all, an increasingly likely factor in the Modern Nights, then the Baron does have to be appointed by virtue of merit or consensus. If, yes, he has a group of supporters that back him up and function like a Primogen then he basically is similar to a Prince.

                        However, most of them will be leaders or there won't need to be leaders because the territory is just vaguely shared. If there's enough blood to go around and everyone will join together to push out any Camarilla poachers or Sabbat packs (and probably only a pack) then it is a functional system by itself. The Camarilla may CALL it a gang but it could just be a mutual aid society. Because the Anarchs are aware that humans exist in far greater numbers than them and that you don't NEED to make your society based around solely interacting with other vampires.
                        Last edited by CTPhipps; 02-23-2021, 08:46 PM.


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

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X