Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Poll: Favorite Covenant

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

  • Ventrue Life
    started a topic Poll: Favorite Covenant

    Poll: Favorite Covenant

    I'm actually rather curious as to what Vampire the Requiem Second Edition covenant is the most popular. So please take a second to vote and feel free to discuss below!

    Which Vampire the Requiem 2e covenant is your favorite if you have to pick just one?

    The poll:
    https://www.strawpoll.me/17432327


    Mine is the Ordo Dracul.

    The reason I like the Ordo Dracul is because it's Dracula's covenant and they have, in my opinion, the most optimistic and amendable outlook on unlife out of all the covenants. They don't just accept who and what they are, they don't just try to live with or rationalize their Damnation like the Lancea et Sanctum does, they don't fill their Requiem with politics that lack any intrinsic value. They actually go out and do something about their curse, trying to improve themselves, and actually do it. It's not just empty words or hollow ideals with the Ordo Dracul, they actually, empirically, managed to change their curse, through hard work and dedication. That's super amazing in my opinion.
    I always looked at the Ordo Dracul as Ayn Rand's Objectivism applied to vampires, and I can dig that.

  • Prince of the Night
    replied
    Circle here

    I like the ordo draculs Coils but their "Nothing is Sacred attitude grates on me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Spencer from The Hills
    replied
    Originally posted by Khanwulf View Post

    It's all in the marketing material. You read their pamphlet, right?

    Invictus took control (in a probable version) by offering stability of rule in the chaos of fallen Rome and the dark age of the 5th Century. They spread by being effective at first and later by being the best networkers and dealers in favors around. Their selling point is still stability and good management; do not underestimate that draw to people who have experienced the alternative (and honestly, the embrace itself with transition to the night is enough of a shock).

    The Invictus will have their own share of intolerable sots, who will eventually get ripped out of place unless they can squash malcontents or make them leave. This is the same as any other Covenant. But the Covenant overall is as benign as any: they are there to do what's said on the tin, and clearly advertise that scratching backs works.

    In fact, overall each of the Covenants can afford to be forthright about what they are about. The tricky bit remains in individual motivations and interactions.

    --Khanwulf
    That's pretty much how conservative parties work. Ours actually used a slogan "Strong and stable" last general election. My point is that being lazy and apolitical isn't enough to tolerate some of these regimes. I think that's something that determines typical clan roles:
    • Ventrue make themselves the authorities.
    • Mekhet hide from the authorities (and support them when it suits them).
    • Gangrel evade the authorities by staying in places where nobody wants to enforce.
    • Nosferatu do a bit of both.
    • Daeva aren't good enough at hiding or rugged enough/inclined to go out of town, so they try to overthrow the authorities and gather followers to deter enforcement.

    Leave a comment:


  • Khanwulf
    replied
    Originally posted by Spencer from The Hills View Post

    That's assuming that Invictus is basically benign to most kindred.
    It's all in the marketing material. You read their pamphlet, right?

    Invictus took control (in a probable version) by offering stability of rule in the chaos of fallen Rome and the dark age of the 5th Century. They spread by being effective at first and later by being the best networkers and dealers in favors around. Their selling point is still stability and good management; do not underestimate that draw to people who have experienced the alternative (and honestly, the embrace itself with transition to the night is enough of a shock).

    The Invictus will have their own share of intolerable sots, who will eventually get ripped out of place unless they can squash malcontents or make them leave. This is the same as any other Covenant. But the Covenant overall is as benign as any: they are there to do what's said on the tin, and clearly advertise that scratching backs works.

    In fact, overall each of the Covenants can afford to be forthright about what they are about. The tricky bit remains in individual motivations and interactions.

    --Khanwulf

    Leave a comment:


  • Spencer from The Hills
    replied
    Originally posted by Gurkhal View Post
    In fact one of the things that I feel that the Invictus has going for it is that many lazy or politically not very interested vampires may prefer for the First Estate to take control and just let things be while they do what interest them. A Sanctified Kindred may be more interested in personal spirituality than keeping up with a rapidly changing programe of social engineering voted on in democratic fashion by the Carthians which is designed to intrude and change the unlife of this Sanctified, along with the rest of the city, or get the city to start to transform itself as the Dragons are redirecting lay lines for a great occult project. Thus this Sanctified could let the Invictus rule and the show goes on, and she can do his spiritual searching under the auspices of the First Estate who handles everything without this Sanctified having to concern herself with things that don't interest her from the start.
    That's assuming that Invictus is basically benign to most kindred.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gurkhal
    replied
    Originally posted by Ventrue Life View Post
    To paraphrase Nines from Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines: "we don't need some Camarilla to tell us that we need to keep our existence a secret, that shit is just common sense." The same could be said about the Invictus. Their value does not lie in their ability to uphold the Masquerade, because domains without the Invictus exist and clearly those domains do just fine (as far as vampire domains can do "fine").
    In my opinion the Camarilla can make a better claim than the Invictus. The Camarilla created the Masquerade from the, interesting, situation previous to its creation and the Anarchs are essentially the "Loyalist" faction of the Camarilla. And there's no great maniac covenant like the Sabbat that the Invictus need to guard against.

    Saying that all domains beyond the Invictus' grasp does fine seem to be a bit of a stretch as "doing fine" also depends on personal view. A savage Acolyte or fascist Carthian domain may not feel very "fine" to exist in for many, even if they do uphold the Masquerade.

    In fact one of the things that I feel that the Invictus has going for it is that many lazy or politically not very interested vampires may prefer for the First Estate to take control and just let things be while they do what interest them. A Sanctified Kindred may be more interested in personal spirituality than keeping up with a rapidly changing programe of social engineering voted on in democratic fashion by the Carthians which is designed to intrude and change the unlife of this Sanctified, along with the rest of the city, or get the city to start to transform itself as the Dragons are redirecting lay lines for a great occult project. Thus this Sanctified could let the Invictus rule and the show goes on, and she can do his spiritual searching under the auspices of the First Estate who handles everything without this Sanctified having to concern herself with things that don't interest her from the start.

    Leave a comment:


  • Reslin
    replied
    Personally my favorite Covenants flip flop and have since I began to be the Storyteller. Once you begin crafting different npc's from the sympathetic and non-sympathetic you begin to see a system that could easily incentivize various characters. Usually when joining a covenant I think about who my character is rather than what they offer. I also disagree with some people stating that the Ordo Dracul makes the strongest characters or even other covenants. I can go all day about different builds and how the various covenants can produce strong contenders.

    Such as bringing up examples about how the Lancea Sanctum have one of the quickest ways to provide lethal damage or so on. I won't lie there was a point when I first began playing first edition that I really saw the Circle and Sanctum as "Religious Vampires" and wrote them off but when you get into the core of why they "work" they become a lot more fascinating. Especially when you begin to think about how people join even "religious" circles with various levels of commitment and belief. A sanctum character can be anything from a religious zealot to someone who seeks historical relics with religious connotations Indiana Jones style.

    Someone who joins for a "Brotherhood" style way of life or as a way to find meaning in their existence. The different ways and reasons why someone might join are numerous and you probably get your fair share that join it just to influence the masses while paying the actual beliefs very little lip service. This is true for all the covenants. I've had a character in each of the covenants so far and have played many different clans over time but I think I tend to flow to the Carthians the least and I've had the most characters in the Lancea Sanctum despite initially being the most opposed to it funnily enough.

    I did vote Ordo Dracul because I think I'd gravitate towards that if "I" was a Vampire.. but it seems I like playing Lancea Sanctum characters due to the potential depth there.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rathamus
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ventrue Life
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • Primordial newcomer
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Live Bait
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ever Professional
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Primordial newcomer
    replied
    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)

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X