[WIR] Anarchs Unbound - Anarchy in the WOD

[Nicolas Milioni]

Charles what do you think of the original Anarch symbols. The one mixing severall symbols into one?

[CTPhipps]

Charles what do you think of the original Anarch symbols. The one mixing severall symbols into one?

I think it's very clever that the Brujah have an upside Anarchy symbol that forms a V.

The Anarch symbol here? I can't say I'm a fan. I feel a modified ankh is a bit too pretenscious for the Anarchs.

SYMBOL 1#:

I feel it's a bit too archaic.

I feel the even more complicated symbol of the Anarchs is another thing that doesn't fit them very well. Maybe an ankh shaped like a dagger would work but not everything else.

SYMBOL 2#

Something more like this.

SYMBOL 3#

I think it's more likely, impossible as it may be given Michael Moorcock that they'd probably use something like the Chaos symbol.

SYMBOL 4#

[Mister_Dunpeal]

Yes, one of the genuinely interesting developments of V5 and building from Beckett's Jyhad Diary is the fact that the Duskborn are going to be the 4th Anarch "Clan" (I use that to mean major faction and not Antediluvian descended group) even more than the Caitiff. Jenna Cross is a major NPC in my current Jacksonville, Florida game where the PCs repeatedly went out of their way to campaign for Thin Blood rights and protect the colony of them there.

Now it's become a actual power faction and they have to decide whether they've made a tiger in their backyard. On the plus side, they've turned the Anarchs in the city from a joke into an actual scary faction the Prince must contend with.

Faction is probably a better term than Clan. Or Tribe, coalition, alliance, affiliation, mob. They may even use different terms depending on their beliefs or philosophies but there would be distinct-if-broad 'hierarchies' that represent collections of 'anarchs' who believe roughly the same thing. Sort of like the Panders in the Sabbat.

Some may congregate due to nature (as in the thin bloods), others may be ideology, or some may even just rally around a charismatic personality (that leaves room for the MacNeill types.)

I suppose it's a matter of taste really because some people are going to love a Prince for being hard on Anarchs, Caitiff, and Thin Bloods. The whole existence of a Scourge is someone who exists to exterminate a class of vampire for no reason other than being the wrong "kind" of vampire. I liked that addition to Revised's Camarilla because it was a reminder they were Lawful Evil and every bit as bad as the Sabbat in their own way--just less overt.

Mind you, part of what I've done with my Princes is the best Princes remember Machiavelli's ENTIRE quote: "It is better to be feared than loved but if you cannot be BOTH then above all, do not be hated."

The Anarch problem in America was a fairly contained one prior to the Second Inquisition because most Princes irritated Anarchs and were a pain in their ass but weren't actually trying to destroy them (at least in a way they noticed). It's only when the Camarilla replaced Prince Waldberg for being too nice that the Anarchs revolted and took the city. I kind of like that as one of the elements of V5. It's not the Camarilla is INCOMPETANT but they do make plenty of bad decisions that tyrants have throughout history.

They worry about being too soft and make bigger problems for themselves than they ever would if they didn't try to go hard. It's why I can believe Marcus Vitel was beloved, feared, and respected as Prince of Washington D.C. then became every bit the same as its Baron/Emperor.

Obviously, Anarchs with something to directly oppose is something much more interesting than Anarchs just hanging out in Los Angeles. LA by Night the web series makes the Anarchs of LA seem much more reasonable and interesting with a few small changes by Jason Carl.

* The Barons of LA working behind the scenes as a Primogen.
* The Second Inquisition as an active threat to the Anarchs.
* The Camarilla having seized Beverly Hills and being a direct threat.

I think the ideal Anarch game has the Camarilla and Anarchs in a low-level war, territories controlled by others, with potential jumping in problems from the Sabbat or other groups. Which is, again, probably why I like V5 so much.

I don't think it's so much taste as differences in philosophy and the individuals who make up each 'sect'. Like the Camarilla is all about organization and stability (for secrecy and survivial). There is a certain degree of corruption (in the sense of a pyramid scheme) and that order helps keep certain ones in power. But there are limits to greed and self interest because it can become disruptive and threaten the structure. Someone who steps out of line out of greed is as apt to be crushed by the status quo as someone who rebels for more noble reason. Ultimately, the bulk of the organization will be 'don't rock the boat' types rather than evil types. I see the 'evil selfish' types as 'parasites' (unintentional bioshock reference!)

A smart Camarilla leader (and there are some) will be able to manage Anarchs without rocking the boat or provoking the Anarchs. But those kind are going to be rarer because its harder to 'build and maintain' a self sustaining structure than it is simply to exploit an existing one (as a parasite). And the lazy parasites will be the one most likely to exploit - and set off - the Anarchs.

In this sort of situation you could even have some 'Anarchs' who would be willing to deal with or even ally with the Camarilla for stability or some other larger goal, whereas others are likely to see that as treason, and attack their own side as collaborators. Or maybe they just like Chaos. But if too many of them rock the boat, then the Camarilla as a whole turns against the Anarchs without making such distinctions (because they wouldn't bother, would they? the intelligent types are rare.)

Ultimately, neither faction is necessarily 'bad', or even monolithic. But because there are too many fundamental differences, and not enough willing or able to bridge those differences proactively you end up with alot more conflict than there needs to be.

It may even be something the Antediluvians encourage and manipulate to keep both factions off-balance (and not a threat to them or their designs.)

I feel like the Sabbat draws from a lot of the Anarchs influences and also had the benefit of mysticism as well as a more overtly antagonistic relationship with the Camarilla. If you want to play a bunch of hell-raising lawless biker vampires then the Sabbat is more likely to fill your need, especially if you feel like breaking taboos like making them diablerists or guys who just eat an entire dinner full of people with no regard the Masquerade.

That was how they used to be, yeah, but I'm still not sure what we might see of them in V5. They've retained the 'militant' feel, at the least but a big question is how definitive militant is.

Maybe the 'current' Sabbat is simply the original one stripped down? All the other elements (the anarch-like elements moved to the anarchs, the cultist elements formed their own little sub-group, etc.) have left and the Sabbat represent the prepper/survivalist/militia enthuisast types. The Spartans of Vampire society whose entire culture (and purpose) revolve around a conflict, and those they're opposed to. Until recently it was the Camarilla (and humans) but now that the Antes are on the scene they have bigger fish to fry.

There's still an element of 'defiance of authority/hierarchy' in it, but with a different goal/outcome than the Anarchs and a far greater capacity to unite (if there is an external threat. If one doesn't exist, and you can't manufacture one... then they're likely to fall apart or tear themselves apart.)

Actually, now that I think about it, I think I just described the vampire equivalent of 40K Orks with alot of the joke elements removed lol.

Making the Anarchs a part of the Camarilla confused things by making it not quite a political party and not quite a revolutionary movement either. Nuance is lost on your average gamer, really, so you had the Anarch Free States as a place at active war with the Camarilla while they just hung out in other cities.

It made the Anarchs look like poseurs ala Genghis who want the APPEARANCE of rebellion without actually rebelling (which is why I like how he's a toady to Prince Jackson and an Anarch leader in V5 simultaneously).

As I said above, I don't object to the idea of co-existence with the Camarilla for some Anarch factions - pacifistic 'anarchs' like you described before would definitely opt for that. But there's going to be Anarchs that would never settle for that (either because they hate the Camarilla or what they represent, or they just like conflict for the sake of conflict.) And because the Camarilla thrives on stability or order and isn't likely to care for any sort of nuance in the main, they'll stereotype all the Anarchs as being disruptive rabble-rousers who need to be suppressed/eradicated rather than dealt with. Unless, of course, you get some exceptionally intelligent and influential Camarilla leading things. In some places you'll have that, but alot of places won't.

Yeah, Outcasts is an amazing book and really fleshed out the Caitiff. Sadly, I don't think they ever established what made Caitiff. I think that's something they should have done like, say, sometimes the blood doesn't take in Modern Nights or whatever.

As I said I dislike how Time of Thin blood eroded Caitiff distinctions by grafting them to the thin blooded (like Thin Blooded being inceptors and treating this as if it were a new thing, rather than something Caitiff could do for a long time and was one of their most distinctive traits.)
It just felt like a half-measure that wasn't fully thought through and left alot of loose ends that didn't need to be there.

And it wouldn't have been hard to address, I think. There's A LOT of precedent for 'low generation' thin blood to be a thing, even if you make it rarer than with the higher generations (whereas I feel TTB tried to suggest all Caitiff were now high generation) and it would have added more potential nuance (which I think we're seeing with the duskborn concept) and added other possibilities (allowing for more 'mythologically accurate' dhampir for example, who could be seen as a different 'flavor' of duskborn. In alot of ways they're just two different approaches to the same thing IMHO.)

[Grumpy RPG Reviews]

How about an ankh that incorporates a middle finger?

[Justycar]

Thoughts on Anarch History

+ I really don't get why the Anarch Free State in California really is treated as the biggest thing ever as I can't help but think it's not really that interesting of a story. Yes, a Prince was overthrown by the Anarchs but is Don Sebastian REALLY such an outlier? He's described in the book as a racist anachronistic Elder who longs for the day of feudalism, brutalized Jeremy MacNeil with his powers, was chronically unjust in his judgements, and conducted orgies of excess on a regular basis. Am I an outlier in my handling of Princes? Because that strikes me as pretty typical for them as a general rule. They're (almost) all a bunch of decadent arrogant racist snobs who tyranize their subjects. It's just some are better at it than others. I mean, it seems like Don Sebastian being overthrown is like the only time an Anarch has EVER overthrown a Prince and held territory versus the Sabbat taking it.

Which is really disappointing if true. I mean, what has Salvador been doing otherwise?

+ Jeremy Macneil is also the stated head of the Anarch Movement who, literally, does nothing but manage one Barony. Salvador wrote the Anarch Cookbook and supposedly has killed other Princes since then. While impressive stuff, I feel like they really are given a bigger role in this book than their actions might warrant. There's not much sign they've done stuff outside of the Free States after all.

In fact, in Los Ángeles by night is stated that neither Don Sebastian was not the true tyrant behind the city, nor Salvador García killed him. The Anarch Manifesto written after the rebel killed the prince is completly based on a lie. García and McNeill rise to power was plotted by an elder Toreador hiding behind plain sight.

[CTPhipps]

Faction is probably a better term than Clan. Or Tribe, coalition, alliance, affiliation, mob. They may even use different terms depending on their beliefs or philosophies but there would be distinct-if-broad 'hierarchies' that represent collections of 'anarchs' who believe roughly the same thing. Sort of like the Panders in the Sabbat. Some may congregate due to nature (as in the thin bloods), others may be ideology, or some may even just rally around a charismatic personality (that leaves room for the MacNeill types.)

I think the transformation of the Thin Bloods into a faction with its own new name ("Duskborn") is one of the more interesting things to do with V5. It implies an increasing level of organization and communication among them that shows they can as well as are striking back. Also, presumably Thin Blood Alchemy is a thing that needs to be taught to them even if they should be able to learn 1 or 1-3 in Disciplines because, "What did they do before Thin Blood Alchemy?"

I don't think it's so much taste as differences in philosophy and the individuals who make up each 'sect'. Like the Camarilla is all about organization and stability (for secrecy and survivial). There is a certain degree of corruption (in the sense of a pyramid scheme) and that order helps keep certain ones in power. But there are limits to greed and self interest because it can become disruptive and threaten the structure. Someone who steps out of line out of greed is as apt to be crushed by the status quo as someone who rebels for more noble reason. Ultimately, the bulk of the organization will be 'don't rock the boat' types rather than evil types. I see the 'evil selfish' types as 'parasites' (unintentional bioshock reference!)

I disagree on this because my assumption is the "greed" and "self-interest" should be the Camarilla's actual selling point rather than something that threatens it. The problem I have with Pentex in the World of Darkness isn't the fact it's a supernatural cult that controls all the corporations in the world. It's the fact that I think that Pentex becomes much more believable if you just make profit its motivation rather than serving the Wyrm. Ideology is something that can and has motivated people but also naked self-interest. I don't think the Camarilla is something that fails in its argument it provides security but it's also security to do whatever you want to mortals without consequence.

The big motive of being part of the Camarilla for an Elder is that they're very good at protecting you as you accumulate as much wealth, power, and influence as you can because what else are you going to do with your unlife?

A smart Camarilla leader (and there are some) will be able to manage Anarchs without rocking the boat or provoking the Anarchs. But those kind are going to be rarer because its harder to 'build and maintain' a self sustaining structure than it is simply to exploit an existing one (as a parasite). And the lazy parasites will be the one most likely to exploit - and set off - the Anarchs.

One of the things that helped make the Anarchs "click" for me and this is just me thinking about it is the idea of all vampires being potentially in competition with one another. It's not a high level of competition (unless you're feuding elders) but every vampire has to worry about another vampire fucking it up for them. A young vampire that potentially can bust the Masquerade, feed on someone you have got your eye on, or the more serious possibility of wanting to diablerize you for your power. Anarchs are a posse of younglings working together to protect themselves from Elder reprisal but really any new and younger vampires are a potential threat.

I like Kevin Jackson's idea of "mandatory education" at Critias' School of the Traditions and theoretically that's a good idea but I think a lot of the reasons Neonates get hassled by Elders is because they are a competing predator--no matter how small.

Amusingly, it reminds me of DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS with Michael Caine and Steve Martin. Michael Caine is a richer than God con artist who has made what appears to be hundreds of millions if not actual billions ripping off rich older women and widows. However, he's exceptionally annoyed with the presence of Steve Martin because his grandstanding and (comparatively) petty con artist antics draws people's attention and makes it harder to work because everyone is on their guard. I kind of think that's an interesting angle to look at even peaceful relationships among the War of the Ages.

In this sort of situation you could even have some 'Anarchs' who would be willing to deal with or even ally with the Camarilla for stability or some other larger goal, whereas others are likely to see that as treason, and attack their own side as collaborators. Or maybe they just like Chaos. But if too many of them rock the boat, then the Camarilla as a whole turns against the Anarchs without making such distinctions (because they wouldn't bother, would they? the intelligent types are rare.)

One of the things I really enjoyed about Chicago by Night 5E's Anarchs is that the characters progressed in a believable way while also illustrating different things about the movement. Genghis is the most interesting change really because he's a vampire who desperately wants to turn back the clock to V20 or even earlier. He doesn't want to be an Anarch who is apart from the Camarilla, he wants to be an Anarch in the Camarilla.

That was how they used to be, yeah, but I'm still not sure what we might see of them in V5. They've retained the 'militant' feel, at the least but a big question is how definitive militant is.

Maybe the 'current' Sabbat is simply the original one stripped down? All the other elements (the anarch-like elements moved to the anarchs, the cultist elements formed their own little sub-group, etc.) have left and the Sabbat represent the prepper/survivalist/militia enthuisast types. The Spartans of Vampire society whose entire culture (and purpose) revolve around a conflict, and those they're opposed to. Until recently it was the Camarilla (and humans) but now that the Antes are on the scene they have bigger fish to fry.

There's still an element of 'defiance of authority/hierarchy' in it, but with a different goal/outcome than the Anarchs and a far greater capacity to unite (if there is an external threat. If one doesn't exist, and you can't manufacture one... then they're likely to fall apart or tear themselves apart.)

Actually, now that I think about it, I think I just described the vampire equivalent of 40K Orks with alot of the joke elements removed lol.

I think there's two potential ways to play with the Sabbat:

1. Same but more managable: The Sabbat is still the same as it's always been in previous Editions with its weird rituals, anti-Catholic Church, blood bond packs, and what everyone likes about it. However, it's gone from being the Camarilla's main rival to being more like their North Korea. They're large enough to resist being destroyed outright but aren't a threat to anything but a single city at once.

2. Belial's Brood: The Sabbat are a bunch of low generation 6th to 9th level monstrous Kindred that are possessed by ancient monsters that are dedicated to an ideal that is not easy to understand. This Sabbat would not be the same Sabbat, though.

As I said I dislike how Time of Thin blood eroded Caitiff distinctions by grafting them to the thin blooded (like Thin Blooded being inceptors and treating this as if it were a new thing, rather than something Caitiff could do for a long time and was one of their most distinctive traits.)
It just felt like a half-measure that wasn't fully thought through and left alot of loose ends that didn't need to be there.

Yeah, I love the Caitiff in Outcasts. But they seem to have faded out of existence.

[CTPhipps]

One thing that got brought up in another thread is how the Anarchs were completely absent from the Signature Characters. Lucita is the most Anarch Elder you might have ever imagined, hating everything about her sire, Clan, and being controlled but was an Autarkis then moved on to join the Sabbat for reasons that didn't really work well (and had her murdering a bunch of children). However, even Ramona is on her own.

Theo Bell has joined the Anarchs but, honestly, I feel like with Lucita this just makes them both more stereotypical.

I am hoping that V5 provides plenty of new signature Anarchs for the sect, though.

[Grumpy RPG Reviews]

1. Same but more managable:

2. Belial's Brood:

I can see Lucita leading the first group, but not the second one. I do not know who or what would be leading it. And signature characters is a good way to put it. The Anarchs didn't use to have any. Now, though, Starek might count.

[CTPhipps]

I can see Lucita leading the first group, but not the second one. I do not know who or what would be leading it. And signature characters is a good way to put it. The Anarchs didn't use to have any. Now, though, Starek might count.

I'm inclined to think Polonia is probably the current Sabbat Regent because I can't see Lucita supporting the suicide charge of the Gehenna Crusade. But we'll see either way.

[Grumpy RPG Reviews]

Oh, Lucy (don't tell her I called her Lucy) is far too smart to be a part of "charge into death" that is the Gehenna Crusade. But she might be leading the survivors away from, and out of, that hopeless nightmare.

[Justycar]

One thing that got brought up in another thread is how the Anarchs were completely absent from the Signature Characters. Lucita is the most Anarch Elder you might have ever imagined, hating everything about her sire, Clan, and being controlled but was an Autarkis then moved on to join the Sabbat for reasons that didn't really work well (and had her murdering a bunch of children). However, even Ramona is on her own. Theo Bell has joined the Anarchs but, honestly, I feel like with Lucita this just makes them both more stereotypical.
I am hoping that V5 provides plenty of new signature Anarchs for the sect, though.

Yesterday I tried to answer this topic, but I think that gone under the radar. So, sorry for quoting myself.

In the past editions, being anarch was being a rebel member of the Camarilla, but Camarilla anyway. In the same way that being Black hand or a Inquisitor was a status inside the Sabbat. They were subfactions. Now the Anarchs are a true faction, a new one. And the older wild cards as Lucita or Anatole are not Anarchs probably because they still view them as a Camarilla pawns. Furthermore, Anarch status is not achieved by lineage or pedigree, but fame and compromise with the cause. Lucita could be a free soul, but she was a mercenary, she did not fought for a cause.

The question is, who are the true anarch icons and leaders? Marguerite Foccart, Salvador García and Tyler? Jeremy Mcneill, Armando Rodríguez and Dominique? The chicagoans Gengis and Maldavis? None of them was a signature character, any of them fill pages and pages of a dozen books and novels, that is the real reason behind the forced "conversion" of Theo Bell to the Anarchism and the new invention of Rudi and Agatha Starek. They are short of referents for this new faction. Specially, if you take the ancient anarchs (Foccart, Tyler, McNeill) out of the stage.

[CTPhipps]

Oh, Lucy (don't tell her I called her Lucy) is far too smart to be a part of "charge into death" that is the Gehenna Crusade. But she might be leading the survivors away from, and out of, that hopeless nightmare.

The big issue she faces is that her bastions of power in BJD are Mexico City's Inquisition, Mardrid's Lasombra, and Montreal's mystics. In short, the Sabbat who are anti-Infernalist. However, Mexico City falls to the Camarilla, Montreal to the SI, and the fact that the new Sabbat is hinted at being EXTRA-Infernalist. Whatever the case, the Lasombra (who were not a cuddly people to begin with) have decided the "New" Sabbat are at their absolute worst.

It's funny because Lucita joined the Sabbat late when all of the idealists like Vasantasena and Ecaterina the Wise are jumping ship. She has shit timing it seems.

Canonically, she'll have to choose between continuing to try to lead a Sabbat that have gotten much-much worse and may be the pawns of the Antediluvians, defect (again), or mayeb lead a Sabbat that is resisting them while the Anarchs become more Sababt-like.

In the past editions, being anarch was being a rebel member of the Camarilla, but Camarilla anyway. In the same way that being Black hand or a Inquisitor was a status inside the Sabbat. They were subfactions. Now the Anarchs are a true faction, a new one. And the older wild cards as Lucita or Anatole are not Anarchs probably because they still view them as a Camarilla pawns. Furthermore, Anarch status is not achieved by lineage or pedigree, but fame and compromise with the cause. Lucita could be a free soul, but she was a mercenary, she did not fought for a cause.

The question is, who are the true anarch icons and leaders? Marguerite Foccart, Salvador García and Tyler? Jeremy Mcneill, Armando Rodríguez and Dominique? The chicagoans Gengis and Maldavis? None of them was a signature character, any of them fill pages and pages of a dozen books and novels, that is the real reason behind the forced "conversion" of Theo Bell to the Anarchism and the new invention of Rudi and Agatha Starek. They are short of referents for this new faction. Specially, if you take the ancient anarchs (Foccart, Tyler, McNeill) out of the stage.

I think it's more the case of Depending on the Writer and some very different ideas about what being an Anarch entailed. Because unlike the Black Hand and the Inquisitors, the Anarchs had successfully overthrown an entire region of the Camarilla (California) while plotting to do the same with places like Chicago.
You then had the Anarchs and Camarilla teaming up to fight the Sabbat throughout the Gehenna Crusade. The Anarchs are a revolutionary movement within the Camarilla but diametrically opposed to it. It's just that the Camarilla isn't in a state of war. You can't be persecuted for having Anarch opinions, just if they break the Traditions.

I feel like that MacNeil and Salvador were the only ones meant to be Anarch leaders who carried over throughout books but this was hurt because Salvador defected to the Kuei-Jin and MacNeil has always been depicted as being one of the big millstones of the Anarchs. Tyler has since also been elevated as a historical Anarch of importance (despite being the archtypal Brujah sellout). Weirdly, I think V5 has elevated a lot of the Bloodlines characters to it with Therese, Damsel, Nines, and Isaac Abrams getting bigger roles.

[CTPhipps]

I'm tempted to buy Count Jocalo's Fate just to have the Anarchs kill him.

[CTPhipps]

Chapter 2: Trouble in Paradise part 4

This is a good section that I very much enjoyed. It talks about the problems that the Anarch Movement has and what sort of issues that they're running into ideologically. It had some surprising moments in it that I don't always agree with but added some variety to the cause.

Mortals

Some Anarchs object to the idea that vampires should be secretly directing the lives of mortals and enslaving them. This is something that I feel like is a thing that should either get a lot more attention (perhaps its own faction) or get no attention at all simply because all vampires are predators on humans as well as believers in the Masquerade.

I feel like a much better point of contention would be the treatment of Thin Bloods and maybe ghouls to a lesser extent. Thin Bloods don't even get mentioned in this part of the book and that's a shame because they are something that I think would definitely add to the Anarch Movement (as I mentioned before). Also, the Camarilla having things like the Scourge is some genuine oppression that they could rail against. Instead, they're just absent here and that's weird. You'd think a Scourge would get a bigger focus given they're not Sheriffs but executioners as well as torturers.

Generation Gap

The Anarchs are people that constantly ape the social norms and customs of their time. This isn't gotten into but I think should have been talked about more. One of the things I liked about Chicago by Night is that it was made of Socialists, Civil Rights activists, and Punks with Goths presumably as the next generation of Anarchs. The book says that they get looked down by the Elders but they are proud of keeping a connection to human developments.

Cyberspace

Another statement that Anarchs are far more tech savvy than the Camarilla. While, again, I disagree that cyberspace is particularly Pro-Anarch, V5 has doubled down on the fact the Camarilla is more likely to use pneumatic tubes to communicate than cellphones. I happen to like the idea the Camarilla's low tech solution is actually cooler than it appears.



The Cleavers

The Cleavers are an interesting element of the TIME OF THIN BLOOD and it's interesting that this is one of the things that stood the test of time. Here, it's not Thin Bloods that are having families but many Anarchs in general. Here, I think the PG-13 tone of the book hurts the story because it implies that it's only a Masquerade breach that's the problem. I feel like any V:TM game should have Cleavers (especially if they're not Thin Bloods) have a much more direct danger.

"Ever get in a heated argument with your spouse? Well imagine RIPPING HER THROAT OUT." That seems like a much better argument for why vampires don't have mortal families. Mind you, one of the plotlines I had was a vampire who lost their memory due to the fact they ATE THEIR BABY. Because, you know, that can happen when they're sitting there all appetizing.

Here, there's no sign that this is not just dangerous but abusive even without the Blood Bond or ghouldom.

The Good Shepherd

This is basically the opposite of the opening where it talks about how Anarchs can use their powers to fight for causes that aren't related to Kindred society. Vampires who are LGBT, pro-refugees, anti-slavery, or so on. I'm inclined to remember the shit that Matthew Dawkins and other writers got for mentioning Neo-Nazis and the Alt-Right in V5 as potential examples. So it's probably a good thing they don't mention those here but my assumption is that TGG is correct that for every pro-democracy, pro-freedom, pro-racial equality Brujah that there's going to be a bunch of racist reactionary ones as well. If I'm going to make a KKK-themed coterie of vampires in, say, RED UNDEAD REDEMPTION 2 then I'd make them Brujah. Brujah are angry at society and the way the world works--that doesn't mean their anger is for good reasons. During WW2, there's going to be Brujah communists, Brujah Nazis, Brujah anarchists, and Brujah Tories (who get the most shit out of all of them).

Weirdly, no comment is made on the hypocrisy of Brujah angry over vampire manipulation of mortals and this--but maybe the author just believes you'll get it without holding your hand.

The Leadership we Deserve

This section discusses the fact Anarch Barons are often people that are unstable because they have a lot less power than their Camarilla counterparts as well as can be overtaken much easier. This is directly contradicted by V5 where it's stated that Anarch Barons, surprisingly, tend to have much MORE power than Princes by comparison. Of these two contradictory ideas, I tend to prefer the latter. Camarilla Princes are people controlled by their Primogen, have to answer to Justicars, and often people heavily in debt to Elders. A Anarch Baron, by contrast, is usually someone who has a "Primogen" consisting of their own gang and supporters. As such, I tend to view that they would also be able to justify a lot more in the name of the Revolution. This is influenced by, of course, that revolutionary dictators in RL tend to be far more powerful than the governments they've overthrown.

So, solid chapter but some disagreements.

[Justycar]

About the Anarchs and their relationship with the Camarilla, I think it had changed with the pass of the editions. In the first and second editions the anarchs are viewed as a teenager phase of the neonates. The Anarch Cookbook pranks and childish tone only serve to reinforce that. Is in 3rd edition that the Anarchs achieve the status of a serious menace to the Camarilla, in my opinion. And about Salvador García, I think that in V5 his treason never happened, the author have rewind the invasion of the Anarch Free States and the fall and the claws of the yellow peril. But, in the same handbook of V5 (Anarchs) is stated that most of european anarchs does not know nothing about García, the Anarch Manifesto or what is happening in USA. There is a chapter of the book about a small group of anarchs in Paris and a american stranger who can not believe that their leaders (García) at the other side of the ocean are so unknown in the Old world. In the same book is written that most of the current european anarchs follow the inspiration of the danish Rudi or the Berlin comitee. I see possible the publication of a Berlin by Night ruled by the anarchs, as an alternative to Los Ángeles.