Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Clan changes in the Camarilla: Near objectively terrible ideas.

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

  • CTPhipps
    replied
    Originally posted by MyWifeIsScary View Post
    The biggest problem I have with LaCroix is his intonation. The guy just sounds so incredibly unconvincing. Like he's got a charisma score of 1. His schemes wouldn't win prizes, but they wouldn't seem half so bad if he spoke like a normal person. Combine the Voice of someone who seems to be making fun of what he's supposed to represent and the Animations of Bloodlines 2 and you've got a fool.
    I assume La Croix sounds like less of a douchebag in his native French.

    Fuedalism isn't really one system. It's an umbrella term/Neologism. I think you should learn more on how they work before you use them to describe problems.
    *looks at degree in Medieval History*

    Okay dokey.

    Edit:

    But yes, basically I think the Jyhad's complexities are what makes the Anarchs a threat. The Anarchs on their own will never amount to much because the Camarilla itself is just another tool of the Antediluvians. I very much am of the idea that vampires are always doing the bidding of someone higher up on the food chain with rare exceptions. Anarchs can occasionally score a victory on their own like killing a Prince or Elder that they sacrifice dearly to do so or get extremely lucky in but my take on the First Anarch Revolt is that it only succeeded against the Lasombra and Tzimisce Clans because their Antediluvians WANTED to do some housecleaning.

    Even then, the Anarchs made their biggest successes because they allied with the Assamites and basically went, "Bon Appetit."

    I love the Anarchs but they will never have any big successes unless they become what they fight. Which is part of the noir feel of the setting. Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown.
    Last edited by CTPhipps; 09-05-2021, 12:47 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • MyWifeIsScary
    replied
    The biggest problem I have with LaCroix is his intonation. The guy just sounds so incredibly unconvincing. Like he's got a charisma score of 1. His schemes wouldn't win prizes, but they wouldn't seem half so bad if he spoke like a normal person. Combine the Voice of someone who seems to be making fun of what he's supposed to represent and the Animations of Bloodlines 2 and you've got a fool.



    Fuedalism isn't really one system. It's an umbrella term/Neologism. I think you should learn more on how they work before you use them to describe problems.

    Leave a comment:


  • CTPhipps
    replied
    Originally posted by MyWifeIsScary View Post
    Well, I like to imagine your average elder has above average intelligence and has the wisdom of at least 300 years of experience.
    CTPhipps presumably likes to imagine they're senile and cranky. Makes them more fun as villains. So he's very liberal with the idiot ball if he thinks it'd make a cool game.

    That's not a bad approach for a city (see LaCroix) but it's really a terrible move to be applying to the setting as a whole.

    I don't imagine the Camarilla as Harmonious but it's more the case that Cam A hates Cam B and Cam B covets Cam C's territory; Anarchs only appear if the prince isn't good at his job.
    Weirdly, I think the Elders often get treated poorly by the setting. I think that anyone who manages to reach the age of 100+ is going to be exceptionally cunning, dangerous, and brilliant. La Croix being the moron that he was doesn't really fit my view of Elders. I sometimes think he's a kind of weird Modius/Lodin hybrid where he's someone who used to be a genius schemer but being obviously set up to fail by the Camarilla has him make some incredibly poor choices.

    If the Elders were united, they would absolutely never have anything to fear from the Anarchs. However, my conception (and this is just my conception) is that the thing to remember is an Elder will never hate the Anarchs or work against them nearly as hard as they will another Elder. By the time you reach 100+ in age, you will have lost many friends, loved ones, betrayed your own personal beliefs that you hold sacred, and other things that will leave you with a seething hate of at least one and probably several of your peers.

    The way it was introduced with Mark Rein Hagen is the fact that Juggler is the same as Modius and despite the fact he's an Anarch, his childe hates him every bit as much as Allicia hates Modius. And Juggler is just a pawn of Tyler. But that doesn't mean Juggler is not an Anarch. It just means he's part of the system. The Anarchs keep the heat on your enemies so its useful to have them around making a nuisance for other people. Why did the Anarch Free States happen? Because a 5th generation Toreador liked the idea.

    The Anarchs will almost certainly always be used as pawns against fellow Elders because the Elders HATE each other and the Camarilla is not a cause they will sacrifice themselves for. And the funny thing is that shit rolls uphill in vampire society. Because the Elders themselves HATE the Elders older than them. Lucita hates Moncada. Moncada probably hates Montano.

    Lucius Sejanus, 2000 year old 5th Generation Vampire? :Lives in mortal terror and loathes his sire, the Sybil.

    The Anarchs are inevitable because every vampire is out for themselves and the Camarilla, like all vampire society, is inherently dysfunctional.

    Edit:

    TLDR: Actually, I view Elders as quite smart but the Anarchs exist and thrive because Elder Society is feudalist and feudalist societies are every house for itself.
    Last edited by CTPhipps; 09-05-2021, 10:42 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sergeant Brother
    replied
    The idea of dumb elders has been a reoccurring theme in V:tM for a long time. A lot of designers identify with the Anarchs and like to think of themselves as fighting “the man” and so like with tell stories with nasty elders that can get knocked down by the plucky heroic Anarchs.

    The Anarchs were indeed always a part of the Camarilla, but the political struggles with the Camarilla was always more complex. We had Clan vs Clan politics which was always a defining struggle within the Camarilla. There was the old versus the young too, which is within the Camarilla not two different sects.

    Leave a comment:


  • MyWifeIsScary
    replied
    Well, I like to imagine your average elder has above average intelligence and has the wisdom of at least 300 years of experience.
    CTPhipps presumably likes to imagine they're senile and cranky. Makes them more fun as villains. So he's very liberal with the idiot ball if he thinks it'd make a cool game.

    That's not a bad approach for a city (see LaCroix) but it's really a terrible move to be applying to the setting as a whole.

    I don't imagine the Camarilla as Harmonious but it's more the case that Cam A hates Cam B and Cam B covets Cam C's territory; Anarchs only appear if the prince isn't good at his job.

    Leave a comment:


  • archderd
    replied
    Originally posted by CTPhipps View Post

    I wouldn't say partially, I'd say the Camarilla COMPLETELY existed to prevent another Anarch Revolt. The Inquisition was also an issue but it was the two main driving and intwined forces.

    The War of Ages and the Anarchs are not the same thing but they are related.

    Basically, I suppose it's how central you see the Anarchs as a part of the gameline. Are they an annoyance the Camarilla tolerates or are they a central conflict? I think the game has multiple answers to that across Editions.
    the primary goal of the cam is protecting the masquarade preventing another anarch revolt is part of that but it isn't the complete objective.

    i'd say the war of ages is central to the game line, the anarchs being a modern incarnation of it, the issue is that alot of ppl treat the anarchs as the only modern incarnation of the war. and if they do acknowledge other incarnations of the war they treat it like it ain't a true scotsman

    Leave a comment:


  • CTPhipps
    replied
    Originally posted by archderd View Post

    most of these either are local issues or human issues that bled into vampiric society. the first anarch revolt happened before the cam was a thing and the cam was formed partially to prevent another conflict on the scale of the anarch revolt.
    I wouldn't say partially, I'd say the Camarilla COMPLETELY existed to prevent another Anarch Revolt. The Inquisition was also an issue but it was the two main driving and intwined forces.

    The War of Ages and the Anarchs are not the same thing but they are related.

    Basically, I suppose it's how central you see the Anarchs as a part of the gameline. Are they an annoyance the Camarilla tolerates or are they a central conflict? I think the game has multiple answers to that across Editions.

    Leave a comment:


  • archderd
    replied
    Originally posted by CTPhipps View Post

    I think you envision a far more harmonious Camarilla than ever existed as before V5 there was:

    * The First Anarch Revolt
    * French Revolution
    * Brujah Council
    * The Anarch Free States
    * The Council Wars
    * The probable death of La Croix at the hands of the Fledgling

    Hell, the Camarilla exists because of the Anarch/Camarilla divide and accepting half of them into the ranks. A lot of them sold out, yes, but new ones filled the ranks.

    Violent overthrow of the Elders has always been a threat from within, though.

    You're acting like the Anarchs were a minor deal versus the guys in charge of California and a resistance in many other places.
    most of these either are local issues or human issues that bled into vampiric society. the first anarch revolt happened before the cam was a thing and the cam was formed partially to prevent another conflict on the scale of the anarch revolt.

    Leave a comment:


  • MyWifeIsScary
    replied
    -Camarilla was created to respond to the first anarch revolt (and it's fucking stupid that they're explicitly recreating the scenario)
    -RevolutionS. There were multiple. France is on it's fifth republic, to say nothing for the failures. Does it say this is all Anarch work?
    -Brujah council was really just going with the flow of a massive and tumultuous mortal event. Also, they probably took that land from the Tzmisce, not the Camarilla.
    -Anarch free states are A: failures and B: California. It's like if I said Communism is still going strong because Vietnam and Cuba. It's irrelevant to most.
    -Don't know what that is.
    -LaCroix is in that free state argument, you're just trying to pad your list out to make it look bigger. Also, I don't think more than 50% go for the Anarch ending.

    Compared to just how big the vampire world is, I'd say the Anarchs were very minor.
    Last edited by MyWifeIsScary; 09-05-2021, 09:18 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • CTPhipps
    replied
    Originally posted by MyWifeIsScary View Post
    This is a lot of bullshit.

    The Cam wasn't Elders V Anarchs. The Cam was Elders who might be losing it a bit, Neonates who were still learning, and Ancillae who understood both and glued everyone together. It's really in the names they've given themselves. Occasionally an elder would lose it and drive others away, or a neonate would screw up, feel persecuted, get ideas above himself, and declare himself an Anarch, and thus a loser. That wasn't the path for all neonates. Plenty of Neonates could play the game well and become the Camarilla in-crowd, working within the system to get what they want. Realistic expectations, humility, willingness to work with others, political awareness, and not being short-sighted is all you need to thrive in the Cam, and all the things you lack if you join the Anarchs (Channeling my Inner Tremere here)

    Imagine getting mad because the country you were born in considers you a citizen and doesn't make you bother with bullshit like Visas.
    I think you envision a far more harmonious Camarilla than ever existed as before V5 there was:

    * The First Anarch Revolt
    * French Revolution
    * Brujah Council
    * The Anarch Free States
    * The Council Wars
    * The probable death of La Croix at the hands of the Fledgling

    Hell, the Camarilla exists because of the Anarch/Camarilla divide and accepting half of them into the ranks. A lot of them sold out, yes, but new ones filled the ranks.

    Violent overthrow of the Elders has always been a threat from within, though.

    You're acting like the Anarchs were a minor deal versus the guys in charge of California and a resistance in many other places.

    Leave a comment:


  • MyWifeIsScary
    replied
    How would you describe it before because the Camarilla has always been divided between the Elders and the Anarchs. The Anarchs have always been a simmering bed of resentment, hatred, and anger at Elder oppression. Whether they were members or not. The big difference is that they were considered members of the Camarilla before even if they didn't consider themselves members. Which they didn't as the existence of the Anarch Free States proves.
    This is a lot of bullshit.

    The Cam wasn't Elders V Anarchs. The Cam was Elders who might be losing it a bit, Neonates who were still learning, and Ancillae who understood both and glued everyone together. It's really in the names they've given themselves. Occasionally an elder would lose it and drive others away, or a neonate would screw up, feel persecuted, get ideas above himself, and declare himself an Anarch, and thus a loser. That wasn't the path for all neonates. Plenty of Neonates could play the game well and become the Camarilla in-crowd, working within the system to get what they want. Realistic expectations, humility, willingness to work with others, political awareness, and not being short-sighted is all you need to thrive in the Cam, and all the things you lack if you join the Anarchs (Channeling my Inner Tremere here)

    The big difference is that they were considered members of the Camarilla before even if they didn't consider themselves members
    Imagine getting mad because the country you were born in considers you a citizen and doesn't make you bother with bullshit like Visas.

    Leave a comment:


  • CTPhipps
    replied
    Originally posted by AnubisXy View Post

    Honestly it felt incredibly stupid to me. The Camarilla's goal has always been to enforce the Masquerade. Cutting off the Anarchs and two major clans just makes it more like that if some dumb vampires start revealing themselves to the public at large, the Camarilla won't have the resources in place to quickly do anything about it. Like it or not, a breech of the Masquerade in one place will cause problems for vampires everywhere, even those in the Camarilla.

    Basically as long as the Camarilla wants to enforce the Masquerade, then it's to the Camarilla's benefit to has many members as possible and as large of a geographic profile as possible to deal with Masquerade breaches. Especially now that Masquerade breaches can mean drone strikes from the military. Cutting so many vampires loose makes no sense. I suppose the Camarilla could have functionally given up on the Masquerade and figures that it's no longer worth the time, effort and resources of trying to keep things secret or protecting dumb vampires from themselves. But dumb vampires getting caught will come back to haunt elders as well - that's exactly what happened during the first inquisition..

    Also saying, "Well, let's kind of give up on trying to enforce the Masquerade" kind of goes against the base idea of Vampire: the Masquerade.
    And yet this is exactly what the vampires in the Dark Ages did to protect themselves. They gave up the younger vampires en masse in order to make sure the Inquisition didn't go after themselves. Which is why the First Anarch Revolt started and why the Second Anarch Revolt has stopped being a nuisance but is now an actual threat to the Camarilla.

    Honestly, it may be a little TOO direct the one to one parallels of the actions of the Elders.

    Even with the "History may not repeat but it rhymes" element.

    Leave a comment:


  • AnubisXy
    replied
    Originally posted by CTPhipps View Post
    I was okay with this because I felt it was a reaction to the Second Inquisition (as well as an attempt to make it more like the Invictus--I freely admit it). The Camarilla cutting the Anarchs and most of the poorer vampires of their ranks loose is pretty much what happened during the First Inquisition.

    From the perspective of the Elders, if the Masquerade is already half-broken, is there any reason looking after the people who don't benefit them?
    Honestly it felt incredibly stupid to me. The Camarilla's goal has always been to enforce the Masquerade. Cutting off the Anarchs and two major clans just makes it more like that if some dumb vampires start revealing themselves to the public at large, the Camarilla won't have the resources in place to quickly do anything about it. Like it or not, a breech of the Masquerade in one place will cause problems for vampires everywhere, even those in the Camarilla.

    Basically as long as the Camarilla wants to enforce the Masquerade, then it's to the Camarilla's benefit to has many members as possible and as large of a geographic profile as possible to deal with Masquerade breaches. Especially now that Masquerade breaches can mean drone strikes from the military. Cutting so many vampires loose makes no sense. I suppose the Camarilla could have functionally given up on the Masquerade and figures that it's no longer worth the time, effort and resources of trying to keep things secret or protecting dumb vampires from themselves. But dumb vampires getting caught will come back to haunt elders as well - that's exactly what happened during the first inquisition..

    Also saying, "Well, let's kind of give up on trying to enforce the Masquerade" kind of goes against the base idea of Vampire: the Masquerade.

    Leave a comment:


  • CTPhipps
    replied
    Originally posted by MyWifeIsScary View Post
    I really feel like someone didn't understand the Camarilla and wanted to transform it into something they could understand; So the Cam/Anarch divide became a reflection of the USA's mortal politics: A two party system with the Anarchs liberal and the Camarilla conservative, with third parties deleted because they're basically a waste of a vote.
    How would you describe it before because the Camarilla has always been divided between the Elders and the Anarchs. The Anarchs have always been a simmering bed of resentment, hatred, and anger at Elder oppression. Whether they were members or not. The big difference is that they were considered members of the Camarilla before even if they didn't consider themselves members. Which they didn't as the existence of the Anarch Free States proves.

    If vampires were more like mortals, this could work, but they aren't, even your most disadvantaged full-blood is a king among men, with the innate ability to create ghouls.
    We've discussed this before but without Dominate and Presence [and sometimes with], many vampires are people who have to survive from night to night. Ghouls are people who you have to trick into drinking your blood multiple times and then rapidly degenerate into barely functional junkies if they're not careful. Plenty of vampires, in simple terms, are people who have to work hard to feed let alone build networks of power.

    But obviously this is just how I run it at my table and interpret the books versus how you run it at yours. YMMV.

    Even so, I don't think that this argument (even if it's true) actually changes things. Because at the inherency of the Kindred condition is the "Vampires are Mobsters" element that Mark Rein Hagin put into it. Even if the Anarchs and Brujah are just a bunch of greedy bastards who want turf and power, that's pretty much an argument right there to fight them for it.

    A Baron is no different from a Prince save his own goons will kill him if he screws up (versus the Primogen) but the reason the Baron overthrows a Prince is because he wants what the Prince has. Which is, to a vampire, justification by itself. The Have Nots need no reason to hate the Haves except for greed.
    Last edited by CTPhipps; 09-05-2021, 06:27 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trollroot
    replied
    Originally posted by MyWifeIsScary View Post
    I really feel like someone didn't understand the Camarilla and wanted to transform it into something they could understand; So the Cam/Anarch divide became a reflection of the USA's mortal politics: A two party system with the Anarchs liberal and the Camarilla conservative, with third parties deleted because they're basically a waste of a vote. The Camarilla took on all the conservative qualities it could that a liberal doesn't like: It became Elitist, it became hostile to the "poor", It became religious in the worst way it could, it lost the Brujah because the writers mistook the prince's loyal opposition for liberals, and it gained the Lasombra because they're aggressive and religious and represent the Latin republican stereotype.
    As I wrote elsewhere, to me this smacks of focus group "How do we market this to todays kids?" along with "Make it easier for the TV writers to understand". They'd burn the game to the ground for a shot at success in the really big media.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X