Anarch domains: why official supplements ignore them?

[Lysander]

[QUOTE=Haquim;n1485320]The title, basically: why do you think we never got a decently flashed out anarch domain? In the years we got loads of Camarilla ones, a few Sabbat ones and even one Autarkis one (Cairo). All we got for Anarchs are contested domains (the former Free State basically) and, recently, a shortt write up for Indianapolis (which is more a Setite city than an Anarch one). Why do you think game designers are so reluctant writing a supplement for a full Anarch domain?

Edit:I guess it might be a lack of imagination on how to best create such a fractious group of neonates and ancialla who have there own ideas of how to create a better vampire society. They don't have a united vision like the other two major sects or the raw power to back it up. Most of them are of the weaker generations and you would be lucky to encounter any 9th or 10th generation members in there circle who have gotten a real taste of power from the Camarilla and the Sabbat have. That is my two bits in regard why there hasn't been much stuff on the Anarchs outside The Guide To The Anarchs that was published years ago and the more recent one.

[Black Fox]

My point stands on Salvador García stands. As am Andalucian 19th century anarchist he is probably extremely anti authoritarian and anti communist.

Since this thread has inspired me to look back at LAbN and develop the Free States for my own chronicles, I've come to certain conclusions on Salvador and his "gang".

Jesus Ramirez is the de facto "baron" of La Hermandad in Los Angeles. He rules the "barony" in Salvador's absence. Many, but not all, of its members come out of the Spanish anarchist tradition. Jesus is one of the major leaders in the Los Angeles Free States. But Salvador Garcia is the leader of "the Brotherhood" which is a North American wide (possibly worldwide) secret society of anarchists among vampires. Members are required to swear an oath to each other as well as to the principles for which the Brotherhood ostensibly stands. (Because secret societies and oaths are cool, and if Salvador was a member of the Mano Negra we should have elements like that in our own new fictional society).

Unless you are in Los Angeles and in the barony Jesus Ramirez controls, you aren't an actual member of La Hermandad. It's a local factor only. But any Anarch anywhere might be a member of the Brotherhood, which would be a secret society of vampire anarchists. Of course, the barony of La Hermandad would be a place of refuge and indoctrination/training for any member of the Brotherhood, and Jesus would welcome a lot of members of the Brotherhood for a while before eventually kicking them out to go back outside and spread the revolution.

Technically, there is no distinction between La Hermandad and the Brotherhood. It's just that La Hermandad is a particular local "chapter" of the Brotherhood, and an example of what members of the Brotherhoods in other cities hope to recreate locally.

In some domains, there may be actual coteries of the Brotherhood where every vampire is a member of the Brotherhood. In other domains, members would belong to coteries whose other members might be other Anarchs or even members of the Camarilla, their membership of the Brotherhood either a secret known only to them or perhaps known to other coterie members depending on the specifics. But they all hold to anarchist ideals and are personally loyal to Salvador Garcia.

Now, I don't know what it would actually mean to be an anarchist vampire as opposed to what a human anarchist believes. A lot of human anarchism relates to economic issues like the means of production which is totally irrelevant to vampires in regards to other vampires. Maybe some kind of self-governing commune in place of the Prince and Primogen, and no individual domains/hunting grounds with every territory being open to all vampires?

I think having an actual secret society of anarchist vampires among the Anarchs provides some much needed flavor text. And it can be used to create distinctions among otherwise generic Anarchs. It also creates a minor mystery in the sense a vampire who is a member might not be known, and this is something the PCs would need to figure out. It might be fun to speculate who among the original Chicago By Night Anarchs might be a secret member of the Brotherhood. Ironically, the best candidate might be Juggler who clearly would not be a sincere member.

[Microcuchon]

Since this thread has inspired me to look back at LAbN and develop the Free States for my own chronicles, I've come to certain conclusions on Salvador and his "gang".

Jesus Ramirez is the de facto "baron" of La Hermandad in Los Angeles. He rules the "barony" in Salvador's absence. Many, but not all, of its members come out of the Spanish anarchist tradition. Jesus is one of the major leaders in the Los Angeles Free States. But Salvador Garcia is the leader of "the Brotherhood" which is a North American wide (possibly worldwide) secret society of anarchists among vampires. Members are required to swear an oath to each other as well as to the principles for which the Brotherhood ostensibly stands. (Because secret societies and oaths are cool, and if Salvador was a member of the Mano Negra we should have elements like that in our own new fictional society).

Unless you are in Los Angeles and in the barony Jesus Ramirez controls, you aren't an actual member of La Hermandad. It's a local factor only. But any Anarch anywhere might be a member of the Brotherhood, which would be a secret society of vampire anarchists. Of course, the barony of La Hermandad would be a place of refuge and indoctrination/training for any member of the Brotherhood, and Jesus would welcome a lot of members of the Brotherhood for a while before eventually kicking them out to go back outside and spread the revolution.

Technically, there is no distinction between La Hermandad and the Brotherhood. It's just that La Hermandad is a particular local "chapter" of the Brotherhood, and an example of what members of the Brotherhoods in other cities hope to recreate locally.

In some domains, there may be actual coteries of the Brotherhood where every vampire is a member of the Brotherhood. In other domains, members would belong to coteries whose other members might be other Anarchs or even members of the Camarilla, their membership of the Brotherhood either a secret known only to them or perhaps known to other coterie members depending on the specifics. But they all hold to anarchist ideals and are personally loyal to Salvador Garcia.

Now, I don't know what it would actually mean to be an anarchist vampire as opposed to what a human anarchist believes. A lot of human anarchism relates to economic issues like the means of production which is totally irrelevant to vampires in regards to other vampires. Maybe some kind of self-governing commune in place of the Prince and Primogen, and no individual domains/hunting grounds with every territory being open to all vampires?

I think having an actual secret society of anarchist vampires among the Anarchs provides some much needed flavor text. And it can be used to create distinctions among otherwise generic Anarchs. It also creates a minor mystery in the sense a vampire who is a member might not be known, and this is something the PCs would need to figure out. It might be fun to speculate who among the original Chicago By Night Anarchs might be a secret member of the Brotherhood. Ironically, the best candidate might be Juggler who clearly would not be a sincere member.

Your idea looks really cool and I think I will copy it. Actually, I think New Orleans bN mentioned a secret society of Anarchs clases The Phoenix Society, and that would be the name I would use, not to make it too obvious.
I still disagree that the main issue in anarchism is the economy. The main issue is freedom and the abolition of hierarchies. Most left anarchists and all anarcho communists oppose capitalism because it generates hierarchies. On the other hand, Agorists, mutualists and anarcho capitalists are anarchist models that support or allow free markets and private property of the means of production.
My point is that vampire Anarchs' goal will be exactly the same: abolition of hierarchies, including both Princes and Bishops, the Camarilla and the Sabbat.
Barons, the way are presented in the books, are a hierarchy and Anarchs shouldn't have them. In my LAbN game the barony system is supposed to be a temporary measure created as a response to the
Sabbat invasiion of 1965, and some of the noted committed Anarchs' are trying to abolish it in 1991. Because they should not be a feature of the system

[Microcuchon]

Regarding CbN characters, Anita is the perfect candidate, as she is supposed to have connections all around America

[monteparnas]

My point is that vampire Anarchs' goal will be exactly the same: abolition of hierarchies, including both Princes and Bishops, the Camarilla and the Sabbat.

It wouldn't because of what "Anarch" means in the setting.

While certainly inspired by real Anarchism, in VtM the term refers to anyone that opposes the current sects. That means a lot of those people do not necessarily ascribe to actual Anarchism in any way, shape or form. They may want something more democratic, or a system where the Prince/primogen has to answer to a parliament or to some popular-made laws, or whatever. Most don't have any clear political idea at all.

Assuming the "Anarch Movement" as something even resembling an actual consistent political movement is silly, which is one reason they always had a problem using the Anarchs. But I do agree that secret societies within the Movement with actual ideologies would be a big improvement.

For Garcia, I disagree that he would be anti-communist. In the 19th the term was far less defined and frequently used by Anarchists of the time, and Marxists back then wasn't incompatible, in fact Marx himself basically reached Anarchist conclusions through his works in economics. It doesn't mean he would encapsulate every Anarchist thought, but he was be among them. 20th century developments would have a lesser impact on the view of someone that knew 'communism' primarily through 19th century discussion and pamphlets.

[Microcuchon]

It wouldn't because of what "Anarch" means in the setting.

While certainly inspired by real Anarchism, in VtM the term refers to anyone that opposes the current sects. That means a lot of those people do not necessarily ascribe to actual Anarchism in any way, shape or form. They may want something more democratic, or a system where the Prince/primogen has to answer to a parliament or to some popular-made laws, or whatever. Most don't have any clear political idea at all.

Assuming the "Anarch Movement" as something even resembling an actual consistent political movement is silly, which is one reason they always had a problem using the Anarchs. But I do agree that secret societies within the Movement with actual ideologies would be a big improvement.

For Garcia, I disagree that he would be anti-communist. In the 19th the term was far less defined and frequently used by Anarchists of the time, and Marxists back then wasn't incompatible, in fact Marx himself basically reached Anarchist conclusions through his works in economics. It doesn't mean he would encapsulate every Anarchist thought, but he was be among them. 20th century developments would have a lesser impact on the view of someone that knew 'communism' primarily through 19th century discussion and pamphlets.

The problem with introducing parliaments or laws is that vampiric society is very small compared to modern human.societies. When the largest cities have a kindred population similar in size to a small village, representative systems don't make much sense. Hierarchy, direct democracy or anarchy are the most reasonable options.
There is room for reform in the Camarilla, of course, but I wouldn't include the ones who pursue that Anarchs, but Camarilla reformers of progressives. Anarchs should want an abolition of the Camarilla and the Princes' pseudo feudalism and a society based on direct democracy or libertarianism.
Regarding Salvador García, communist and anarchists actually fought each other during the Spanish Civil War. He doesn't strike me as a theorist, so regardless of what Marx concluded, he would probably have a poor opinion of Marxists, as he would see them as hierarchical and oppressive (specifically in the 1930's under Stalin's leadership)

[monteparnas]

The problem with introducing parliaments or laws is that vampiric society is very small compared to modern human.societies. When the largest cities have a kindred population similar in size to a small village, representative systems don't make much sense. Hierarchy, direct democracy or anarchy are the most reasonable options.
There is room for reform in the Camarilla, of course, but I wouldn't include the ones who pursue that Anarchs, but Camarilla reformers of progressives. Anarchs should want an abolition of the Camarilla and the Princes' pseudo feudalism and a society based on direct democracy or libertarianism.
Regarding Salvador García, communist and anarchists actually fought each other during the Spanish Civil War. He doesn't strike me as a theorist, so regardless of what Marx concluded, he would probably have a poor opinion of Marxists, as he would see them as hierarchical and oppressive (specifically in the 1930's under Stalin's leadership)

I'm aware of that, but the question isn't what we think would make sense as a system, it is what different characters would think and the different conclusions they would reach. That's why narrowing it down to one or a few actual ideologies isn't what it actually means to be an Anarch in the setting.

And a lot of times the "Anarchs" in an arrea are mostly just disgruntled with the Prince, not with the very idea of a Camarilla. They're Anarchs because in practical terms in most domains you're either loyal to the current status quo or you're an Anarch. So I disagree that a reformist would not be considered an Anarch, simply because their society doesn't have the actual space for that distinction (or at least to make it significant).

Keep in mind what the Anarchs are in most cities in practice: the disgruntled neonates and eventual Ancilla that gather out of the sight of "proper Kindred society" to complain about their ruler and maybe try to coordinate some payback. Or maybe just complain and help each other. Actual philosophies and ideologies may be discussed, but they're secondary to the simple fact those vampires are on the fringes of society but don't want to (or they would be Autarkis)

That's the general framework, and within it anything goes. People may believe in impossible ideas, or may want to tear down the system, or just make some reforms. They may want a democratic state, or even a theocratic one. Heck, they may want to set an actual monarchy where divine mandate defines the rightful King and see the Prince as an usurper. Everything a normal human can have as an ideology a vampire can have too, but the setting does not have enough political space for all those people to form their own parties and stuff.

You're either a keeper of the status quo or you're against it, the many reasons and theories behind your position won't change the two options you have.

[Microcuchon]

I'm aware of that, but the question isn't what we think would make sense as a system, it is what different characters would think and the different conclusions they would reach. That's why narrowing it down to one or a few actual ideologies isn't what it actually means to be an Anarch in the setting.

And a lot of times the "Anarchs" in an arrea are mostly just disgruntled with the Prince, not with the very idea of a Camarilla. They're Anarchs because in practical terms in most domains you're either loyal to the current status quo or you're an Anarch. So I disagree that a reformist would not be considered an Anarch, simply because their society doesn't have the actual space for that distinction (or at least to make it significant).

Keep in mind what the Anarchs are in most cities in practice: the disgruntled neonates and eventual Ancilla that gather out of the sight of "proper Kindred society" to complain about their ruler and maybe try to coordinate some payback. Or maybe just complain and help each other. Actual philosophies and ideologies may be discussed, but they're secondary to the simple fact those vampires are on the fringes of society but don't want to (or they would be Autarkis)

That's the general framework, and within it anything goes. People may believe in impossible ideas, or may want to tear down the system, or just make some reforms. They may want a democratic state, or even a theocratic one. Heck, they may want to set an actual monarchy where divine mandate defines the rightful King and see the Prince as an usurper. Everything a normal human can have as an ideology a vampire can have too, but the setting does not have enough political space for all those people to form their own parties and stuff.

You're either a keeper of the status quo or you're against it, the many reasons and theories behind your position won't change the two options you have.

You make great points here.
I think we are looking at the same ideas from different angles. The nuance is even bigger when you have to consider different settings would have different anarch movements.
I am currently running two completely different games in that regard. In my 1991 Chicago+L.A.+Cleveland game the Chicago Anarchs' are a strongly anti hierarchical group, which is partly based on the ideology many of them had before the Embrace. Most of them are Brujah. By their side there are a group of more reformist Kindred, including Maldavis, who are lumped into the Anarch camp not by choice, but because they belong to "low clans", basically Nosferatu, Gangrel and Caitiff.
And at the same time there are reformists who, by virtue of being Ventrue, Trenere or Toreador, and attending Elysium, are not labeled as Anarchs except in very specific circumstances and only by hard-line conservatives.
In L.A. the situation is different. There we can find a significant group of ideological anarchists, radical democrats or socialiss who are trying to stir Anarch society to a new model of organisation, side by side with a bunch of opportunists who are there just became they had to run away from their Prince's. In Cleveland the Anarchs are lead by a moderate reformist who happen to be a good personal friend of the Prince; obviously, the younger radicals oppose this as cooperation with the status quo.
And in Cairo 2022 anarchists and Anarchs are almost non existent. A group of younger kindred with different reformist agendas gather together under the aegis of an old guard Elder revolutionary Brujah. They don't even call themselves Anarchs, but Modernizers and most of the city Elders leave them be as an inocuous social group

[monteparnas]

I think we are looking at the same ideas from different angles.

Pretty much that, and I like your ideas.

That was basically my point, from a setting-wide perspective no ideology defines the Anarchs because they're too varied for that. When it comes down to specific places, then we "anything" isn't in the sense that the Anarchs are a formless mass, but that how they look like anywhere else has no bearing on what will the Movement be in this particular place, but here we will have far more specific circumstances.

In this sense I also agree that secret societies among the Anarchs work really well. They give us a way to have "political parties" within the Movement that will give it color and help delineate ideologies within the constraints of the setting. The Movement in a city is defined by local circumstances, but membership in such a society gives the character a framework of thought through colleagues across the world (given their society doesn't have a strong presence locally), a party line they can uphold or question without feeling alone.

At the same time, some won't have such a society. And some such societies may be just reformists or something else. With such societies in place I can even picture one actually defending the idea of a parliament, but not just for one Domain...

[Black Fox]

Regarding CbN characters, Anita is the perfect candidate, as she is supposed to have connections all around America

I disagree heavily. While Anita was certainly an important Anarch, there is nothing in her background that associates her with actual anarchism which would be the point of Salvador's "Brotherhood" (or whatever you want to call it).

I always imagined her as someone who would have been with the Weather Underground sending out mailbombs to blow up "the pigs" if she had not become a vampire. Those people were radical leftists, but weren't any kind of anarchists. Her biography shows her as someone who was becoming increasingly radical left wing. But she didn't want to eliminate hierarchy, just establish a new hierarchy that would be more "just" according to her political ideology, most of which would require some kind of strong state. She'd be closer to Leninism than anarchism.

[Black Fox]

One of my other ideas is to go back to one of the stronger NPCs in LAbN which is Louis Fortier. Almost everyone who read LAbN identifies Fortier and his barony as "Camarilla-lite." His involvement with the Anarch Movement and Free States is almost accidental. He just thought Don Sebastian went too far in his treatment of Jeremy MacNeil, and his sense of justice caused him to side with O'Neil and overthrow Don Sebastian. He then establishes his own domain in west LA / Beverly Hills where he lives with his three blood bond mistresses, like if they were the brides of Dracula, which does not seem like a very Anarchy thing to do. His survival in LA simply seems to be because he sided with MacNeil early on when it truly mattered, and MacNeil protects his mates, as well as a sense of gratitude of the original Anarchs for his help.

As written though, there's a lot of flaws if we want to make Fortier anything that matters. The first is that his "barony" is just him and his three brides. There's literally no one else per the book. So if we wanted to use his barony as a place where some of the pre-1944 Kindred of the city could have fled to and survive, we need to change canon. But that is relatively easy - expand the borders of his barony a bit and include a few more NPCs. The second is to make him more than just the guy who helped out MacNeil and therefore survived the purge. This is a little bit harder, but I have an idea.

My model here are the Barons' Wars against the King of England in the 13th century, particularly Simon de Montfort. These were the people behind the Magna Carta and an increased role for parliament. I think this fits well for Fortier whose concern wasn't that there was a Prince, but that the Prince was not constrained in his actions. His ideal form of vampire government would place the Prince in a stricter constitutional role and more enunciated rights for vampires. This would put him on the left wing of traditional Camarilla politics, but certainly no Anarch. His involvement with the Anarchs is an anomaly due to the specifics of the events of 1943-1944.

So this is how I would run Fortier and use him in the Free States as part of Kindred society.

First, Fortier and his barony ended up being the protector and haven for some of the moderate Kindred of the Camarilla in LA before the revolt. The Anarchs probably killed most of the existing Kindred, or they fled into exile before they were killed. But some survived and threw themselves under Fortier's protection who prevented them from the Anarch proscriptions. The other Anarchs agreed to this because a) they owed Fortier a lot for his help, and b) those who remained did not have a reputation as lackeys of the elders. (Simply because you want to kill Lodin doesn't mean you think Sir Henry Johnson needs to die.) There's actually characters like that in LAbN already like the Blount Sisters or the Vignes Family, so it's not a stretch. And if we wanted to keep them in their current locations, all we'd need to do is extend Fortier's demand to northern LA like a crescent so it covers Hollywood, San Fernando Valley, Glendale, Burbank, and Pasadena. Most of this area aren't really "baronies" controlled by some warlord anyway, so consolidating them under Fortier won't substantially alter the setting if that is important to you. And we can put any Toreador and other vampires who would be based in Hollywood. In addition to these, I would also give him one or two able lieutenants/supporters who can uphold his reign and protect him and the other Kindred. Best if these were not Ventrue so maybe a Gangrel and Nosferatu.

None of the Kindred here are really Anarchs, but neither are they politically motivated. The real Anarchs of LA don't really like or trust them, but find them fairly harmless. Justicar Petrodon smartly decided to not set any spies or agents here, though there may be one or two Kindred here he pumps for general information just to keep current. Petrodon knew any agents he recruited here would quickly get exposed so he works in planting them among the real Anarchs instead. Besides, as the right wing of the Anarch Free States, Fortier might one day defect if the Free States deteriorate. Better to bide time than risk alienating a potential future ally.

Fortier himself runs his barony like a "good prince". In fact, I'd have him publicly model himself on the Barons Revolts to explain his involvement, and he was the first Kindred leader to be called a "baron". Eventually MacNeil used the term against all the other Anarch leaders, but whether it was done to remonstrate them for acting like Fortier, or to subtly protect Fortier from accusations he wasn't loyal to the Anarchs is up for debate. The main distinction of Fortier's barony is that 1) he has a list of specific rights that all Kindred enjoy in his domain and 2) restrictions on the arbitrary ruse of his powers, plus 3) a kind of parliament. This is essentially an elected Primogen Council who advises Fortier and brings him any grievances. In truth, Fortier is much less like Simon de Montfort and more like Edward I and his model parliament. Fortier's authority in his barony is absolute for a simple reason, every Kindred there knows he is the only thing that would prevent the actual Anarchs from swarming in, claiming domain, and likely killing most of them. In turn, Fortier is just progressive enough and his friendship with MacNeil and the other original Anarchs of 1944 keeps him as part of the Free States.

However, every decade that passes sees more of the original 1944 Anarchs destroyed or moved on, and more radical Anarchs arrive from outside the LA area who have no personal connections to Fortier. As such, Fortier's position in the Free States is gradually declining. But MacNeil's support, and his personal rapport with his fellow Ventrue Jesus Ramirez of La Hermandad (and via him, Salvador Garcia) keep him safe. If these pillars of the Anarch Movement and Free States have no problem for him, that is enough for many Anarchs who value a big tent.

I should also note that Fortier is also a fairly skilled fighter, with Intimidation 5 and having Firearms and Melee at 4. His physical Disciplines are a bit weak. But I would make him sufficiently dangerous that he has destroyed more than one rival/enemy who challenged him. I'd probably add a few more Disciplines and increase his Melee to 5, making him a renown swordsman, perhaps the best on the West Coast. His enemies are frequently staked and decapitated. The other Anarchs respect his physical prowess, and since he never interferes in the internal domains of the other barons, the established Anarch leadership has every reason to leave him alone. It's only newly arrived hotheads who think they can create their own barony at Fortier's expense who get torched. Still for the extreme radicals like Smiling Jack, the time will eventually come when the revolution no longer needs to tolerate Kindred like Louis Fortier, and he'll be lined up on the walls like all the others.

This ends Part 1. Posting another part to break open the block of text.

[Black Fox]

Part 2.

Second, we give Fortier some kind of actual political movement that can go beyond his barony. This would be a kind of Chartism that makes the vampire political system more open and with more guarantees for individual Kindred. It is heavily based on the Conclave system and not only upholds more rights of individual Kindred against the Princes, but the right of domains (i.e. the Princes) against the Inner Circle and the Justicars. The exact nature of these reforms are vague, and change from domain to domain and Kindred to Kindred. The "Chartists" are mostly a movement within the Camarilla, and its advocates spend most of their efforts in conclaves trying to establish precedents and outright controls over certain Princes. We can imagine it was these Kindred who have handled Lodin some of his few defeats in Conclaves near Chicago. But some Chartists adopt insurrectionary movements, particularly against the most despotic of Princes (just like Louis Fortier himself). These rebels would make up the extreme right wing of the Anarchs. But most of the Chartists are at best, "Anarch sympathizers". But many of these "sympathizers" detest most of the actual Anarchs like Smiling Jack or Salvador Garcia and many others. They favor some variety of Chartism as a reform to prevent the kind of rebellion that overthrow Don Sebastian. They want to prevent the establishment of more "Free States", and do not share the radical agenda of most Anarchs.

Fortier himself is a controversial figure among the Camarilla. He is often viewed as a traitor to his kind, and "Fortier" or "Fortierism" is hurled as an insult in Camarilla salons. But Fortier is an elder who was a respected member of the Camarilla and even Primogen when he lived in pre-Sabbat takeover of New York, in San Francisco, and Los Angeles before 1944. He has many friends and maintains ties through correspondence. At time Fortier has even managed to attend some Conclaves and advocated for his position. I like to think that Critias is one of his correspondents, though the Greek philosopher has a poor opinion on Fortier's letter writing style and attempts at political philosophy. He probably thinks Fortier's a bit of a dunderhead, but who isn't when you are Critias? But some respectful comments about Fortier by Critias has given him a good reputation among many Brujah who respect the Greek elder.

Most Chartists are relatively anodyne and don't threaten the main powers of the Camarilla. Even Fortier himself really doesn't as his ambitions are limited. But some Chartists go much further and espouse abolishing the Inner Circle itself in favor of a "Grand Conclave" who would directly elect the Justicars and supervise them for abuses. Although the current voices calling for this is small, the Inner Circle itself views these Kindred - despite being loyal members of the Camarilla - as more dangerous than actual Anarchs.

Fortier himself holds no position of leadership among the Chartists. Indeed, he is neither the first Kindred who adopted such a position, nor is he among the leading theoreticians who currently advocate it. He is simply an example, and he does not provide any kind of support to those who act in that philosophy except in encouragement and possible personal friendship.

Outside of his barony, Chartism holds little appeal among the other Anarchs of the Free States. Though as some Anarchs age, they grow disgusted at the violence and antics of other Anarchs, they may petition Fortier to allow them to become residents of his barony. David Geduld, another Ventrue, does not espouse Chartism, but appreciates Fortier providing a stable right wing of Free State politics. Geduld does not want to be associated strongly with other Ventrue, fearing the loss of his own revolutionary credentials. He tries to model himself on Jeremy MacNeil, but tries to support Fortier how he can out of loyalty to another Ventrue and to prevent the rise of even more radicalism in the Free States.

[Reasor]

The Anarchs best work in a Camarilla city as they're basically an essential part of doing what I consider to be a "classic" Vampire: The Masquerade game. The Anarchs serve as one of the factions in a city against the Prince and Elders. They've got their own intrigues, though, and power plays.

This is such an important idea that the Sabbat copies it whole cloth, in its Loyalist faction - who chafe against the sect's domination by Tzimisce and Lasombra elders and want to get back to what they see as the Anarch Revolt ideal of "no gods, no masters."

[Microcuchon]

I disagree heavily. While Anita was certainly an important Anarch, there is nothing in her background that associates her with actual anarchism which would be the point of Salvador's "Brotherhood" (or whatever you want to call it).

I always imagined her as someone who would have been with the Weather Underground sending out mailbombs to blow up "the pigs" if she had not become a vampire. Those people were radical leftists, but weren't any kind of anarchists. Her biography shows her as someone who was becoming increasingly radical left wing. But she didn't want to eliminate hierarchy, just establish a new hierarchy that would be more "just" according to her political ideology, most of which would require some kind of strong state. She'd be closer to Leninism than anarchism.

Definitely, you have a great point. On the other hand, I can imagine Anita as proponent of the non Hierarchal but strong community systems, similar to Spanish anarcho communism. If you want someone who is fully anarcho communist in CbN that would be Dickie Fulcher, but I don't see him as a member of a secret society

[Black Fox]

If you want someone who is fully anarcho communist in CbN that would be Dickie Fulcher, but I don't see him as a member of a secret society

I consider Dickie Fulcher just to be another delinquent thug with no aspirations other than it's fun to give the finger to the Man and get revenge on the people who killed his sire/lover. He was a troubled kid who was embraced at the age of 15 by another vampire who was 14, probably because she thought Dickie would be a good boyfriend as she thought he was cute and both liked punk music. This was not a guy who had any real ideas about political philosophy. He's a soccer hooligan without the soccer.

He insufficiently cared about anything that he wasn't even a member of Juggler's Anarchs. He was one of the "nihilists" coterie whose objective real purpose was to ignore any rules that "annoyed" them.

Now granted, it's now been over 40 years since his embrace (as opposed to the 15 or so when CbN was first introduced), and I have no idea how he might be portrayed in V20 or V5. But as originally written, this is not a guy who is any kind of deep thinker. He just has a Rebel nature, but is also quite easily lead as long as its towards the things he already wants to do. I would think if he has any real actual beliefs about politics, it's because he is repeating the things he's heard by the people around him, probably some figure that fills the emotional void left by his sire's destruction. Change out that person, and his views would change. In fact, given his friend Damien is now the Sheriff of Chicago in V5, I could just as easily see him helping his old buddy as a lackey just as much as staying with the Anarchs.

To be honest, if he is still around I'd be shocked. As written, this was not a character that seemed destined for anything other than destruction in a few years. At best, this guy is the kind of cannon fodder Anarch leaders send to their deaths as acceptable losses. "To bad we lost Dickie on that failed attack on the Prince. But we almost got him! Any way, on the next thing..."