Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Lance and Ghouls

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

  • The Lance and Ghouls

    I browsed the current Chronicle books and couldnt find much about how the Lance feels and thinks about Ghouls. I also couldn't find anything in the older books but I'm sure I'm just missing it. Can someone help me out?

  • #2
    There's an extensive section on them in the Ghouls book. The big takeaway is that they are looked upon as a hair better than being humans and do the 'tedious tasks Kindred see as beneath them.'

    And if they're found knowing Theban Sorcery the best they can hope for is death.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by nofather View Post
      There's an extensive section on them in the Ghouls book. The big takeaway is that they are looked upon as a hair better than being humans and do the 'tedious tasks Kindred see as beneath them.'

      And if they're found knowing Theban Sorcery the best they can hope for is death.
      So even mortal priests that are Lancea Ghouls will be treated as 'your human piece of trash'?


      LGBT+ in CoD games
      Dark Eras fan stuff hub ( with Eras inside ):
      Byzantine Empire in Middle Ages ( 330–1453 A.D.)
      Conquest of Paradise – Portugal and Spain in 15th century and their conquests
      My stuff for VtR 2E, WtF 2E, MtAw 2E & BtP

      Comment


      • #4
        Not necessarily. Might be treated like the pet dog that knows tricks, the butler, the cleaning lady or even a kid brother. Depends on the local particulars and the kindred in question here. What the text covers and explains is that the Lance doesn't really encourage their people to think of ghouls as all that much better than humans and that their philosophy over all drives that idea home with a large portion of them.

        Comment


        • #5
          But if I understand correctly Lancea Sanctum dogma, mortals that drinks vampire blood are almost the same sinners as the Sanctified in the first place. Only that mortals should not drink vampire blood, as it is temptation to them, the same way as LS Succubus tempting married men to have sex with her. It shows that Ghouls to LS are 'those weak men, not true believers in the Gods plan and will', yes?
          Last edited by wyrdhamster; 10-27-2017, 03:35 AM.


          LGBT+ in CoD games
          Dark Eras fan stuff hub ( with Eras inside ):
          Byzantine Empire in Middle Ages ( 330–1453 A.D.)
          Conquest of Paradise – Portugal and Spain in 15th century and their conquests
          My stuff for VtR 2E, WtF 2E, MtAw 2E & BtP

          Comment


          • #6
            One thing you're overlooking is that the sanctified view vampires as higher than humans in the same way humans are higher than rabbits (if you eat it you're better than it) so making a ghoul is like taking a pet.
            It's not the perfect way of explaining but you get the idea.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Live Bait View Post
              One thing you're overlooking is that the sanctified view vampires as higher than humans in the same way humans are higher than rabbits (if you eat it you're better than it) so making a ghoul is like taking a pet.
              It's not the perfect way of explaining but you get the idea.
              Wait, what?! Is not whole point of Lancea is to scare humans to return to 'God's work'? And that vampires are literal demons in flesh? And by this vampires are just below free will humans and forever damned?


              LGBT+ in CoD games
              Dark Eras fan stuff hub ( with Eras inside ):
              Byzantine Empire in Middle Ages ( 330–1453 A.D.)
              Conquest of Paradise – Portugal and Spain in 15th century and their conquests
              My stuff for VtR 2E, WtF 2E, MtAw 2E & BtP

              Comment


              • #8

                If you're going by the most basic Christian doctrine, vampires aren't demons because they were NEVER angels, they aren't spirit entities, and they can be destroyed by means other than being tossed into the Lake of Fire or the spoken word from God. Vampires were humans who have somehow been denied the promise of salvation from sin granted by the grace of Jesus' sacrifice because they came into contact with a tainted entity at some point or were murdered by said entity. There is no "canon" explanation as to why or how this overrides divine grace other than "a curse of unknown origin". They just claim to offer a purpose driven existence that they can use that curse to further what they claim is "God's will". Anything else is individual ST declaration.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by tsusasi View Post
                  If you're going by the most basic Christian doctrine, vampires aren't demons because they were NEVER angels, they aren't spirit entities, and they can be destroyed by means other than being tossed into the Lake of Fire or the spoken word from God. Vampires were humans who have somehow been denied the promise of salvation from sin granted by the grace of Jesus' sacrifice because they came into contact with a tainted entity at some point or were murdered by said entity. There is no "canon" explanation as to why or how this overrides divine grace other than "a curse of unknown origin". They just claim to offer a purpose driven existence that they can use that curse to further what they claim is "God's will". Anything else is individual ST declaration.

                  Right: Lancea doctrine holds that vampires are set aside to do a specific, different work and thus must conform to that instead of being offered grace. Yet they're not fallen angels, because they were never angels. There are contradictions in the Lancea that point to it being cobbled together from a stew of gnostic, pagan and Christian elements. This is ripe for "conversations" within a Lancea synod on "heresy" of grace and the like.

                  Considering these kinds of conversations drove a millenia and a half of religious strife in Europe, you have plenty of solid material on which to base a purely Lancea chronicle, seeking to understand the true relationship of vampires to God, while the Lancea itself is NOT encouraging to introspection even at its highest levels of order!

                  Back to ghouls, because this interests me:
                  My understanding of how they treat them is that it's going to be a little subjective based on the local Sanctified leadership, and what they're preaching. If they want to double-down on dogma they could easily demand a hard line toward ghouls, banning their existence (at least among Lancea adherents). Or, the could recognize them as necessary servants/pets and lay out rules for from whom and how they are to be acquired. For example--requiring ghouls be taken from individuals who are otherwise breaches of the masquerade, brought before the Prince or the Bishop, and blessed as useful as opposed to problems to be liquidated. Since ghouls are frequently Step 1 toward embrace, they might lay out rules related to the embrace, and who the Sanctified draw into unlife.

                  Contrast this with the Invictus, who view ghouls as pure property--slaves in short; with the only emancipation paths being embrace or death, thanks to the masquerade.

                  --Khanwulf

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by wyrdhamster View Post
                    So even mortal priests that are Lancea Ghouls will be treated as 'your human piece of trash'?
                    They likely believe mortal priests 'don't get it.' How could they, when they haven't experienced what a vampire has? This is probably why they tend to be prey.

                    Regarding ghouls eventually becoming vampires. Ghouls, p37, really a great book if you want to know anything about ghouls.

                    'Of course, the ultimate reward that is dangled in front of many thralls is that they could eventually be chosen to become Kindred of the covenant. This potential promise, however, holds little truth and goes generally unfulfilled. The covenant maintains an unspoken rule disdaining the practice of bringing ghouls into the fold. Something about the idea remains base and vile, for ghouls (while better than most mortals) are often deranged, addicted creatures. Does God deserve sycophancy from such broken animals? Are such creatures worthy of God, as well? The answer to both questions is usually a swift and unchallenged “no.” It’s not completely unheard of, however. Some ghouls are capable of standing out, of excelling and showing a truly pious face in light of all that’s happened to them. Even then, such thralls are tested again and again (questioned on dogma, forced to suffer physical and emotional pain, asked to perform egregious tasks in the name of the covenant) before ever being granted the Embrace.'

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by wyrdhamster View Post

                      Wait, what?! Is not whole point of Lancea is to scare humans to return to 'God's work'? And that vampires are literal demons in flesh? And by this vampires are just below free will humans and forever damned?
                      Vampires are damned but that doesn't make them less than humans just like a rabbit can't sin but is well below humans. I suspect that some of the faithful view ghouls as a Masqurade breach, some view vampires as less despite any doctrine to the contrary and some don't actually believe that they are damned in any meaningful way.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Regardless of the Covenant, ghouls range from being practically slaves to abused lovers, it's never a nice experience for them but they always come back for more

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X