Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Anarchs in a Camarilla City and Embracing?

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

  • Quatar
    started a topic Anarchs in a Camarilla City and Embracing?

    Anarchs in a Camarilla City and Embracing?

    So, let's say you have a Camarilla ruled city with a Prince in charge. But there's either a part of town that's Anarch territory (like Hollywood in the Bloodlines game), or you just have a strong enough Anarch faction there, so the Prince can't just fully steamroll them.

    If an Anarch embraces a new childer, do they need to ask the Prince for permission too? That seems to go counter to anything the Anarchs stand for.
    Do they just go "Well fuck you, I'm an Anarch and Treaty of Thorns bla bla, I do what I want, and this is my childe now, you can't do anything" ?
    Or is it something in between?

  • Dwight
    replied
    Originally posted by Penelope View Post

    I totally agree with you, but how many Princes honor a five hundred year old treaty?
    Depends on how strong a hand the anarchs have to enforce it or the Prince to ignore it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Penelope
    replied
    Originally posted by Dwight View Post
    Per the treaty the only tradition the anarchs have to follow is the masquerade. Now if said embrace breaks that then the Prince can come down on the sire with the full weight of their office.
    I totally agree with you, but how many Princes honor a five hundred year old treaty?

    Leave a comment:


  • MyWifeIsScary
    replied
    Originally posted by Sergeant Brother View Post
    An Anarch in a Camarilla city getting away with embracing because he's an Anarch would be like someone in an American city claiming that they don't have to obey the law because they are a "sovereign citizen."
    Poor kid does drugs in the US: Junkie, lock him up.
    Rich kid does drugs in the US: "The defendent is clearly a troubled youth, community service it is.

    The key is to have so much power that the law doesn't want to trouble you. Anarchs? If there's a few you can kill them for embracing. If there's a lot, and they're ready to go to war, you're in an interesting position.

    Leave a comment:


  • xguild
    replied
    Originally posted by Sergeant Brother View Post
    An Anarch in a Camarilla city getting away with embracing because he's an Anarch would be like someone in an American city claiming that they don't have to obey the law because they are a "sovereign citizen." You just can't maintain a system that way. If anybody can just say "Hey, I'm an Anarch, I don't have to obey this rule or that one." then there is no Camarilla law. If the Anarchs took and held part of a city by force, then sure, maybe the Prince couldn't enforce his laws over the Anarchs there just like a US city that was taken over by an insurgency or foreign power would have trouble enforcing laws there. If a Prince can't enforce the the Traditions of Progeny or Accounting in their own city is a Prince who doesn't actually control that city, so an Anarch who embraces without permission represents a major threat to that Prince's authority.
    Not that I disagree, but there is a lot more to the Camarilla and the position of prince then blindly enforcing of the traditions like its the letter of the law. There are lots of reasons, logic and motivation a prince in a Camarilla city may have for not enforcing a tradition, offering immunity or simply making an exception. The prince of the city is rarely the ultimate authority anyway and its a rare city indeed where the prince can simply do what he wants, tradition or no tradition. I guess I'm just pointing out that its never that simple... black and white situation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sergeant Brother
    replied
    An Anarch in a Camarilla city getting away with embracing because he's an Anarch would be like someone in an American city claiming that they don't have to obey the law because they are a "sovereign citizen." You just can't maintain a system that way. If anybody can just say "Hey, I'm an Anarch, I don't have to obey this rule or that one." then there is no Camarilla law. If the Anarchs took and held part of a city by force, then sure, maybe the Prince couldn't enforce his laws over the Anarchs there just like a US city that was taken over by an insurgency or foreign power would have trouble enforcing laws there. If a Prince can't enforce the the Traditions of Progeny or Accounting in their own city is a Prince who doesn't actually control that city, so an Anarch who embraces without permission represents a major threat to that Prince's authority.

    Leave a comment:


  • xguild
    replied
    Originally posted by Black Fox View Post
    In response to the original post, it's all about whose Domain it is. If these are just trespassers in the Prince's Domain; they're in violation and the Prince is going to act against them. Whether or not they survive all depends on real practical power and if the Prince is able to enforce his rule. They don't get legal exceptions. Even if they can hold their territory in practice and fight off the Prince's attempts, that just puts the area and issue into contention. The embrace is still illegal. The issue is whether the Prince can eventually get the upper hand and enforce it.

    ONLY if the anarch territory is recognize by the Prince as NOT being part of his domain, can the Prince not do anything about not getting permission. This essentially was the status of Gary, Indiana in the original corebook (even though it's not quite an Anarch Free State, Modius is obviously an ineffectual Prince with real power being shared informally among many others, including Juggler's Anarchs). A Conclave had ruled that Gary was not part of Lodin's domain which is why so many vampires would flock to Gary to create childer there. And Modius was so weak as Prince, he accepted it every time. Of course, the situation in Gary is anomalous because that same Conclave also made Modius partially subservient to Lodin on many issues to the point that while Lodin couldn't control the right of embrace, he could demand that any such fledglings present themselves (essentially Lodin did not have the Right of Progeny, but he did have the Right of Accounting).

    Yeah I tend to agree. Everything about The World of Darkness mythos, Kindred Laws and Traditions and how they are executed, where and how they are obeyed, all of that has less to do with the written language and rules of such laws and traditions and everything to do with who, how and why they are or aren't enforced, which always comes down to the strength of the kindred of the city and their views and political agendas rather then anything on an official document.

    Every city and every prince (or power structure) in a city has its own beat and what comes of the traditions is really a matter of how individual vampires respond to such transgressions. Some are traditionalist, some are oppertunist, some simply don't give a shit. In a sense like anything in an RPG, the world and how everyone in it behaves is always entirely up to the GM and his perception of who these different kindred characters are and how they might behave as a result.

    There is no right or wrong way and certainly the official traditions in Kindred society are a vague suggestion at best with of course the one exception, the tradition that exists out of pure nescessity for everyone, The Masquerade.

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Fox
    replied
    In response to the original post, it's all about whose Domain it is. If these are just trespassers in the Prince's Domain; they're in violation and the Prince is going to act against them. Whether or not they survive all depends on real practical power and if the Prince is able to enforce his rule. They don't get legal exceptions. Even if they can hold their territory in practice and fight off the Prince's attempts, that just puts the area and issue into contention. The embrace is still illegal. The issue is whether the Prince can eventually get the upper hand and enforce it.

    ONLY if the anarch territory is recognize by the Prince as NOT being part of his domain, can the Prince not do anything about not getting permission. This essentially was the status of Gary, Indiana in the original corebook (even though it's not quite an Anarch Free State, Modius is obviously an ineffectual Prince with real power being shared informally among many others, including Juggler's Anarchs). A Conclave had ruled that Gary was not part of Lodin's domain which is why so many vampires would flock to Gary to create childer there. And Modius was so weak as Prince, he accepted it every time. Of course, the situation in Gary is anomalous because that same Conclave also made Modius partially subservient to Lodin on many issues to the point that while Lodin couldn't control the right of embrace, he could demand that any such fledglings present themselves (essentially Lodin did not have the Right of Progeny, but he did have the Right of Accounting).

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Fox
    replied
    I've never considered modern Anarchs to be affiliated institutionally with the Anarchs of the Anarch Revolt and the terms of the Treaty of Thorns. So it's strange to me to see that people think its relevant. Yes, the term Anarch is the same. But so was the term Roman Empire to refer to the actual Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire. Yet everyone accepts they're two totally different things.

    The Treaty of Thorns essentially ended the Anarch Revolt. The Anarchs either joined the Camarilla and accepted its reforms of the Traditions and vampire society, or they continued their struggle and eventually became the Sabbat. It was surrender document mostly negotiated in advance with some last minute minor changes. The idea that you can't be killed for being an Anarch wasn't that people could still be Anarchs going forward. It was a conditional amnesty for any Anarch up to that point. And taking that amnesty ended their status as an Anarch, and they became part of a new system that was partially reformed to end the worst abuses while keeping many of the privileges of the elders.

    I think any future Anarchs (and their opponents) used the term for a combination of convenience and inspiration. But I don't think of then as a kind of "legal" successor.

    (The Treaty of Thorns is relevant in the sense that is part of several agreements that essentially made the Camarilla the supreme authority over vampirekind - at least in the political theory of the Camarilla. The others being the Treaty of Tyre with the Assamites and the Promise of 1528 with the Giovanni. These collectively are the equivalent of the Treaty of Westphalia in the real world which established the principles of the modern international political system. We're not given any such agreements with the other two Independent Clans. But presumably the Camarilla offer to the Followers of Set and their reply to the Camarilla provided for the basis of how the Setites fit in. We're not told anything about the Ravnos. Perhaps that is a reason why that clan had such a dubious reputation and often accused of violation the Tradition of Domain. The Sabbat, of course, became criminal outlaws to the whole thing.)

    Now I'm sure there were some Anarch hold outs from the time of the Treaty of Thorns in the sense that they were not happy. But in reality, if you continued the struggle, you ended up with the Sabbat and stayed a criminal. I've never seen any serious discussion about Anarch hold outs who nevertheless stayed away from the Sabbat (and we need to remember, that the term Sabbat didn't come into play into much later on, and many of the despotic tendencies we associate with the Sabbat did not come until much later. So there's no reason for Anarch hold outs to not have joined the proto-Sabbat instead of somehow continuing to struggle separately).

    Every other Anarch joined the Camarilla. (After the Treaty of Thorns, there weren't any Anarchs anymore except those who would become Sabbat.) And if their unhappiness with the sect eventually resulted them in becoming troublemakers later on, it's a much different struggle because many of the key complaints about the old ways simply don't apply to the Camarilla. Mass blood bonding of their childer is no longer standard. Arbitrary destruction of childer by their sire at any age and for any reason no longer apply. There is even oversight of the decisions and enforcement by Princes by the Justicars. And Conclaves are incipient democratic forums where all vampires are theoretically equal.

    So the new "Anarchs" aren't the old Anarchs. Instead, they have similar, but different complaints. Because their complaints are about institutional flaws of the Camarilla's structure itself, or more likely just bitching about the local Prince. So instead we have various precursors to the modern Anarchs in various failed rebellions until the 1943 establishment of the Anarch Free State, and finally the term Anarch came back into vogue. But it would probably be more accurate to call them neo-anarchs.

    Plus I think it's very strange for an Anarch to insolently swagger up to the Princes and Justicars, shake their fists and say, "You have not authority over me EXCEPT for this Treaty which gives you that authority when my side surrendered to yours!" What kind of a jackass would do that? Shouldn't the neo-anarchs want to repudiate the Treaty of Thorns?

    Now, I understand that this has entered the lore. Way back in the day when I was a member of the Camarilla Fan Club and LARPed, the highest STs did in fact promulgate this kind of view - that the Treaty of Thorns did in fact cover modern Anarchs. However, it was something that was conjured out of the ether. It was a subtle attempt to trick the Anarchs into accepting the authority of the Justicars by appealing to them. And it was also an attempt to increase the power of the Justicars over the Princes because they could now interfere on behalf of protecting the Anarchs. However, it is precisely this reason I don't think the Justicars could ever do so. It would be so controversial a move, it would divide the Camarilla. And it is hard to see in a system of the Inner Circle and Conclaves how this could be done unless it was the culmination of prolonged and widespread debate that resulted in an overwhelming consensus. And despite the problems with this, the Camarilla Fan Club was well known enough that many of the decisions it made eventually would up in official and unofficial channels - the rules of Laws of the Night, adoptions in other LARPs and online games by former members who later gravitate to those venues, and popular oral lore. But obviously I never liked that.

    Now it's possible the new Anarch books goes into more detail on this and provides more detail (I haven't read any V5 stuff and don't intend to do so). From what I've seen, there are lots of points I disagree with during some of their retcons. (For example, while the Brujah Council of the Soviet Union was obviously something different from the standard Camarilla system, I ultimately don't think they were Anarchs which is why the LA Free State and not the Brujah Council was the heir to the Anarch title.)

    I think the only relevance the Treaty of Thorns could still have is if it was used as the basis for the defection of members of the Sabbat, which obviously is an important thing in V5 with the mass defection of many Lasombra.

    Leave a comment:


  • Konradleijon
    replied
    Okay, I don’t think any Vampire would like more Kindred running around.

    Leave a comment:


  • CTPhipps
    replied
    Originally posted by Dwight View Post
    And yet new Anarchs are being created anyways, it's not the sire gets a "404 permission not found" when they slip them the blood, why do you think there are always sooooo many brujah running around......
    Yes....which is why Anarchs are very often being executed and murdered by the Prince. This isn't really an argument.

    Originally posted by Quatar
    As long as they don't break the Masquerade, they are not bound by any other law or Tradition (otherwise they couldn't "act as they please").
    Yes, this is absolutely not true. It is the Anarch's goal and why they must overthrow the Camarilla.

    At least prior to the Anarchs being cast out of the Camarilla.
    Last edited by CTPhipps; 08-21-2020, 07:18 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Quatar
    replied
    Originally posted by Konradleijon View Post
    Siring all Willy nilliy l can lead to a masquerade breach.
    I'm not sure where the "willy nilly" comes from. The question was about a single embrace. Not every Anarch randomly embracing 20 people each night.

    As for the Treaty, now (this is not specifically a response to you, but general)

    According to the wiki here the Treaty reads among other things this:
    Henceforth, the parties shall be recognized by faction as the Anarchs, the Assamites and the Camarilla.
    Three factions. Two of which are the Anarchs and the Camarilla. If your argument is "but they're the same" then the Treaty itself would not specifically call them out as different.

    And then it says this
    Anarchs are guaranteed the freedom to act as they please, short of breaching the "Masquerade" imposed for the protection of all Kindred from the kine.
    As long as they don't break the Masquerade, they are not bound by any other law or Tradition (otherwise they couldn't "act as they please").

    After having read that, I do agree with what Dwight is saying here. Yes of course if you deal with a strong Prince and a weak Anarch faction, then it may be better to follow the laws, because the Prince might not care, but by the Treaty he would be wrong. Just who's gonna hold him accountable.

    And since someone said, the prince will just call a Blood Hunt or sent the Sheriff, I give you this bit of the Treaty:
    Know also that if the Anarchs are further warred upon, this open jyhad invalidates their responsibility to maintain peace with their attacker.
    If someone attacks them, the Treaty gives the Anarchs the right to defend themselves. So no, its not that easy I think

    Leave a comment:


  • Dwight
    replied
    And yet new Anarchs are being created anyways, it's not the sire gets a "404 permission not found" when they slip them the blood, why do you think there are always sooooo many brujah running around......

    Leave a comment:


  • CTPhipps
    replied
    Originally posted by Dwight View Post
    So what happens? An anarch embraces someone and the Prince gets a tingle up their leg? Do then they shoot a magic blood missile that instantly slays the sire and childe?

    No where in the treaty of thorns does it say they have to ask for permission, only to keep the masquerade.

    Apparently it's only illegal if you get caught......
    No.

    No.

    Not at all.

    The Anarchs have to obey ALL the Traditions. They are rebelling against the Camarilla because they only WANT to keep the Masquerade.

    And if you break one of the Six Traditions, the Prince calls a Blood Hunt and any vampire in the city can kill and diablerize you.

    The Treaty of Thorns only guarantees that someone can't be killed for an ANARCH.

    Why do you think the Anarchs are rebelling against the Camarilla? What are they being oppressed by if they can create at will?

    Leave a comment:


  • Dwight
    replied
    So what happens? An anarch embraces someone and the Prince gets a tingle up their leg? Do then they shoot a magic blood missile that instantly slays the sire and childe?

    No where in the treaty of thorns does it say they have to ask for permission, only to keep the masquerade.

    Apparently it's only illegal if you get caught......
    Last edited by Dwight; 08-21-2020, 06:22 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X