Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Poll: Favorite Covenant

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

  • #46
    And of course you all chose the least political and consequential (and my opinion the least playable) Covenant of all. I'm disappointed.

    Anyway, quips about the Ordo aside, I always generated plot by pitting the more "active" covenants against each other using their inherent conflict of interests. Invictus and Lance vs Circle. Invictus vs Carthian. Iblic Creed Lance vs Monachal Creed Lance. Invictus and Carthians (in the secular authoritarian regime sense) vs Circle and Lance. Etc.

    I always enjoyed Invictus the most though, love me some neo-feudal flare and court intrigue.
    Last edited by Shawarbaaz; 03-24-2019, 05:25 AM.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Gurkhal View Post
      I am actually a bit shocked that the Carthians didn't get more votes. I had thought they would be in the top of the vote. But there's something new for me in that, I suppose.
      Yeah, based on the political trends I see among WoD and CofD players, I also expected the Carthians to do better.

      I guess this just proves that either I misjudged the WoD/CofD fanbase, or people don't necessarily go for the covenant that reflects their real-life politics the most, myself included. I voted Ordo Dracul, but I sure as fuck ain't no crazy scientist in real life nor do I look for Buddhist-style enlightenment or ascension in real life.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Shawarbaaz View Post
        And of course you all chose the least political and consequential (and my opinion the least playable) Covenant of all. I'm disappointed.

        Anyway, quips about the Ordo aside, I always generated plot by pitting the more "active" covenants against each other using their inherent conflict of interests. Invictus and Lance vs Circle. Invictus vs Carthian. Iblic Creed Lance vs Monachal Creed Lance. Invictus and Carthians (in the secular authoritarian regime sense) vs Circle and Lance. Etc.

        I always enjoyed Invictus the most though, love me some neo-feudal flare and court intrigue.

        Hey man that's not fair. I know by default the Ordo Dracul isn't necessarily very active in city politics, but it doesn't have to be that way. Simply do what I did in the game I'm running, and put the Ordo Dracul in the driver seat of your city. Interesting things are bound to happen, if nothing else, because the other covenants will go crazy with an Voivode on the throne.

        I know the Rites of the Dragon and the Ordo Dracul Covenant books are both first edition, but reading those books makes it abundantly clear that the Ordo Dracul doesn't have to be politically inactive. There was a lot of political drama and interesting things going on with the Ordo Dracul in the 19th and early 20th century. And since that's also my favorite time period in history aesthetically, I chose that time period for my current Vampire game for exactly those two reasons. It allows me to do something interesting and dramatic with my favorite covenant.

        I also love neo-feudal court intrigue, which is why the Invictus is my second favorite covenant.

        Comment


        • #49
          I think the thing that holds the Ordo in check is that it lacks something to do with those who don't have what it takes to learn the coils. If you suck at being Invictus you can still collect investments and stand about in a nice suit and as far as an outsider can tell you're just like the rest, the Lance and Circle both have lay members and the Movement will still let you be a member even if you have little to offer but a Dragon who can't learn a coil will know they're fodder until they fix that. How long would you realistically stay in the Ordo if you couldn't actually get the main benefit? NPCs can't just spend their xp.
          Players are getting easy mode so they have more reason to join and stick with the Ordo Dracul.

          Comment


          • #50
            Actually it’s perfectly fair. Based on presented mechanics, the Ordo Dracul don’t have the same political mechanics to enable them take and hold power that is available to every other covenant. Nor do they offer anything the other covenants need and can’t replicate equally well or better.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Ventrue Life View Post

              Yeah, based on the political trends I see among WoD and CofD players, I also expected the Carthians to do better.

              I guess this just proves that either I misjudged the WoD/CofD fanbase, or people don't necessarily go for the covenant that reflects their real-life politics the most, myself included. I voted Ordo Dracul, but I sure as fuck ain't no crazy scientist in real life nor do I look for Buddhist-style enlightenment or ascension in real life.
              I agree with the latter. I find Carthians the most sympathetic, but they aren't witches so...

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Ventrue Life View Post
                Yeah, based on the political trends I see among WoD and CofD players, I also expected the Carthians to do better.
                Personally, I feel the underlying issue is that the Carthians are actually extremely apolitical.

                They have the trappings of revolution, but one with no clear programme (beyond setting things on fire) and they don't even really have a clear idea what the problem is. Plus, their entry in the 2e core is pretty blunt about this fundamental hollowness.

                But then you add the weird sociological experimentation. There are Democratic Carthians, Fascist Carthians, even Christian Fundamentalist Carthians, and the members don't seem to see this as an issue. They're just experiments to make a better All-Night Society. I think that's a deeply alien way of viewing politics which gives the Carthians a slightly uncanny feel.


                Comment


                • #53
                  I dont think 2nd edition implies they are hollow at all. carthians are a disparate faction, they are not tied by a set in stone idealogy, they are tied to the idea that society needs to change.

                  carthians shouldn't have a single underlying idea on how vampires need to be run. what makes them interesting is that you never what's going to come from them. how political they are depends on how much you want them to be. same as ordo dracul (and really every other faction. not every invictus state is gonna be suits and ties. they use all trappings of power)

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    I've always run the covenants as being able to bounce off some other Covenant. Like Sanctum/Circle and Invictus/Carthian. For awhile I had some issue with the Ordo, but then I started bouncing it Ordo/Brood considering the Ordo's whole shtick is surpassing the vampiric condition while the Brood was all about embracing the vampiric condition. Though I suppose that's not viable since it looks like Belial's Brood is no longer(?) a covenant in 2e. It looks to be just a case of it being a category for advanced draugr, though I could have read that preview wrong.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Primordial newcomer View Post
                      I dont think 2nd edition implies they are hollow at all. carthians are a disparate faction, they are not tied by a set in stone idealogy, they are tied to the idea that society needs to change.
                      My point is precisely that 'change' is an utterly hollow idea. It's not an ideology of revolution, it's a facsimile of one. They don't articulate coherent problems with society and they don't present any real solutions. Now, I get the design idea of allowing a lot more variety, but I think these two things are in fundamental tension. By allowing any ideology in, you necessarily devalue those ideologies.

                      Also I think it should be mentioned that all the covenants are kinda hollow to some degree, just that the 2e core is a lot more up front about the hollowness of the Carhtians, which to return to the original point, is why I suspect fewer players really latch onto them.


                      Comment


                      • #56
                        I see the main problem with the Carhtians being that every ideology has been broken down and shown to have limits on how far you can take it in the real world yet the goto mind space to put them in is some fringe political movment.
                        Ironically they were given a better representation in Daeva: Kiss of the Succubus than in Secrets of the Covenants since in Daeva they were shown to be doing something for the good of the comunity and in Secrets an angry lady was listing how people have screwed up (not quite fair but you get the idea).
                        Carhtians could be great for infrastructure of a city without even holding government but instead we see them screaming for revolution without any plan for the aftermath, they got type cast and getting them out of their rut requires the ST or a high status player to come up with something thought out for the city you're playing in.
                        That said I seem to ally them with the Invictus when running so I'm clearly off message here.
                        Last edited by Live Bait; 03-25-2019, 07:13 AM. Reason: Formatting

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          while I see your point. since change by itself IS hollow, I think books like Secrets of The Covenants showed that when you apply all the experiments they try. from the successes AND failures, they really shind.

                          thinking about it now though, 2nd edition did make them change and change only

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            I imagine Carthian infighting between different ideologies should be a thing. That's an useful part of the Covenants as somewhat hollow.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              I don't mind getting political in my games, and thus, in my game, set in 1888 London, I made the Carthians an unholy alliance between oldschool Classical Liberal Carthian ancilla, and the angry, hip, new Marxist Socialist Carthian neonates. There is a lot of friction between these two types of Carthians. The former adhere to principles as laid down by John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, where as the latter group follows the teachings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels almost religiously. Infighting happens all the time, but one thing all Carthians agree on: those elder cronies, those filthy colluding neo-feudal elder assholes, especially those in the Invictus, need to be taken down a notch. It's their time to sit at the back of the bus for a change. It's their time to share.

                              Where the Classical Liberals and Socialists differ the most, is on how they plan on getting the elders to share, and how they can get the All Night Society to adapt a more democratic, liberal system. The Carthian Liberals try to navigate the political landscape of the elders and Invictus, trying to gain power through courtship, gaining favors, forging alliances and signing contracts. They want to change the All Night Society through treaties, boardroom deals and gradual reform.
                              The Carthian Marxists call them the "boardroom Carthians" and they believe these "boardroom Carthians" are wasting their time. The Marxist Carthians are the "street Carthians", they want to ignite the fire of revolution and take from these elders what is rightfully theirs, through the use of violence and guerrilla warfare. One by one, they will take the elders down and redistribute what they seized from them amongst their fellow Firebrands. Fellow neonates, we have nothing to lose but our chains!

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Revolutions IRL are often about change for it's own sake, with no real consensus on HOW it should change. Look at the Arab Spring from a few years ago, Venezuela today, etc.
                                I'm not trying to turn this into a political discussion, just pointing out that the vague concept of change often is actually quite an effective way to stir people to action. Ask a man named Barrack Obama.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X