[WIR] Anarchs Unbound - Anarchy in the WOD

[CTPhipps]

Here's a bit of Anarch history I came up with: http://forum.theonyxpath.com/forum/m...76#post1360576

[Mister_Dunpeal]

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.

That's true, but you yourself also pointed out that the Anarchs have suffered from lack of clear vision, especially amongst different authors. Which also is true of the Caitiff and to a lesser degree the Thin Blooded (although less so since V5 for them.)

Adding characters like Lucita or Theo Bell does add stereotypes, but a 'stereotype' can also offer a path for the group that can lead to some sort of consistent vision (and through the magic of retcons you can always do away with stereotypes later. Its not as if WW hasn't tried this before...)

I also think you can draw on other sources like the games for figures here. Remember how we talked about Christof being a figure in the Anarch movement before? Bit of an obscure reference and also kinda stereotypical but it could work.

Edit: Also if we use other fiction as a point of comparison, sometimes you need established characters to bridge the old and the new. We've seen that with the New Star Trek and the New Star Wars after all. It doesn't always work or satisfy everyone, but gambling on a completely new break from the old doesn't always work either (and sometimes is worse. I think some of the V5 mis-steps can reflect this.)

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.

Well that's the beauty of the Anarchs concept I think.. there's plenty of room for factional leaders as the different (competing) interests struggle to unify.

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.

To build on our previous discussion of Caitiff and Thin bloods, I think those kinds of concepts might be a better starting point for fleshing out Anarchs than ideology is (which is just going to be too varied if not confusing to do more than 'give examples' but as you mention later there are other reasons not to go in depth there too.) One thing we know is that Anarchs are often defined by the stereotypes the other sects (esp the Camarilla) impose on them, and many of those stereotypes are based in their nature. Either lack of conformity (disagreeing with Elders/clan, like Lucita or Theo Bell as you mention above) or by the peculiarities of their creation or how the curse affects them (duskborn and caitiff.)

I'd start with the latter and build narratively on the idea that Duskborn are 'build your own vampire' characters that over more customization than 'true' vampires. Start by merging the caitiff idea with thin bloods, but removing the generational element - you can have thin bloods of any generation (although higher generations are still more prone) and have a range of merits and flaws which define how the 'thin blood' manifests (which they kinda did in Time of Thin Blood.) It could be that 'thin blood' vampires - even of lower generation - could age rather than remaining truly immortal (which was an option in TTB and we have a 6th generation Gangrel in Giovanni Chronicle who suffers from that affliction.) It could be the weaker vitae (no ability to make blood bonds or ghouls), and you could even adopt the 'thin blooded alchemy' as a variation of that (they can't learn disciplines, or at most learn only the first level of certain disciplines. All physical, all mental, etc.)

Likewise the advantages would be built from merits (less vulnerable to sunlight, able to eat food or create Dhampir in place of ghouls) and of course being inceptors or seers. Its the inceptor bit where I'd really like to see Caitiff and Thin Bloods synthesized since its meant to be a defining trait of both.

Deacon Frost from Blade is actually a good example of what I am talking about, I think.

To be fair I'm not sure what better term than 'caitiff' you might use for non-clan kindred, but they would be one aspect of the Anarchs. The other part is where ideology comes in (to some degree) and you have Lucita, Theo Bell, and others. They may be clanless, or they may come from clans because they don't like how the Camarilla/Sabbat do things, didn't like their Elder, or any number of reasons. They come from Clans (with all the benefits and flaws therein) but they don't necessarily adhere to the way the clans within a particular sect operate (anti-antitribu?) They might ally with the clanless out of shared heritage (you could still have thin blooded in clans after all), or shared ideology (again Lucita and Theo), or simply necessity/survival. Or a combination of factors.

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.

I think this is part of the 'Anarch/Caitiff = younger, higher generation' stereotype again. And as you note its not entirely true, since we have an entire clan (Nosferatu) who have a signature accomplishment tied up in technology and the internet. And as you also note 'low tech' is not necessarily bad (something that plagues a lot of fiction where 'newer is better' is assumed to be the default.) Think of a post-apocalyptic setting or areas where civilization might collapse (such as.. in a Gehenna scenario). Low tech solutions that aren't dependent upon (or less dependent upon) electricity, computers, and whatnot would actually be MORE survivable. It's not just stuff like pneumatic tubes either. Buried land lines, steam power, morse code and the telegraph, etc.) Heck even computers from the 40s-60s might be an interesting throwback in such a setting (or if you want to get really low tech, difference engines.)

You can easily get situations where 'older, low tech' vampires become nodes for survival or civilization because their preparations were less dependent upon modern tech than with a younger vampire. Or, even better, a synthesis of 'modern' survivalist technology WITH that older, more durable technology.

I actually could see the Anarchs doing better at a synthesis of 'old and new' than the Camarilla, which would also give ample justification to 'older' Anarchs.

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.

I like it because its more of a double edged sword and a different way than the Camarilla/Sabbat approach. Cleavers and others among the thin bloods actually give you a different way of establishing mortal ties and support networks for vampires and in theory its based on more democratic/equality oriented views. The danger of course is that if you give someone a choice they may not always act in a way you agree with (or even contrary to those views) so it can create conflicts. Then you end up with a situation like the 'Vampire Dad' template from TtB (one of my favorite from that book!) Authority and command/force are easier to use and more controllable than attempting to use understanding/cooperation, which I think is where the Camarilla's approach has an advantage. At the cost of flexibility (There's something like this in military doctrine as well in the tradeoffs between a more rigid vs a more fluid military structure I believe.)

And of course the further risk of the Anarch approach is that not everyone WILL agree or have the patience/ability to be understanding so they may revert to more autocratic means of influence/control which results in the dangers and abuse you speak of. Road to hell and good intentions....

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.

I really feel like this is another reason why getting away from ideology and philosophy as a major defining point for Anarchs might be a good idea.

[False Epiphany]

Anarchs Unbound is an especially great book when you consider it within the context of what Revised and even 2e was. The Sabbat had co-opted a lot of the Anarchs' "freedom" rhetoric starting with 2e, and added cool new bloodlines, Disciplines, and Paths on top (though Revised was actually an improvement over 2e in some ways, as they're pretty unrelenting over how hypocritical the Sabbat is as a sect). You even run into groups like the Unbound in Time of Thin Blood who advocate a totally new approach to Kindred society but don't call themselves Anarchs, because Anarchs are failures. WTF? Those guys should just be Anarchs.

Another thing that I think weakened the Anarchs in 2e/Revised (starting with Outcasts, a 2e book) was how Caitiff were basically laughed off as weakling vampires and inherently less than the other clans. In Chicago by Night, Caitiff are a substantial component of the local Anarch Movement. They're portrayed as ultramodern and individualistic vampires who see the concept of clan as an outmoded relic. In many ways, they're as perfect a fit for the Anarchs as the Brujah (and fittingly, 1e Chicago's Anarchs are split roughly 50/50 between Brujah and Caitiff). V5 has done a good job at emphasizing Caitiff as "post-clan" vampires who are just as strong as other vampires, and thin-bloods as pathetic weakling vampires.

But I digress.

I think where Anarchs Unbound really shined was tying the disdainful late '90s/early '00s attitude towards the Anarchs in the books into real-world cultural developments. By the late Clinton/early Bush era, being rebellious wasn't popular and fashionable anymore. It makes complete sense this was a dark time for the Movement, and that they really started to get their groove back when the Great Recession and related events made anti-establishment sentiments flare up again.

I did not like the Anarchs being responsible for the Financial Crisis and Great Recession. I'm a pretty firm believer that vampires should be driven by human history rather than drivers of it. Turning an early Bronze Age pharaoh into a vampire is fine, because the supernatural was more open then, but... I don't think that should fly in the modern world.

The lack of Chicago material might have been a continuation of Revised/2e attitudes towards the city. The writers wanted to stay mostly hands-off from it so that people could have greater freedom for their Chicago chronicle to unfold as they willed. Not sure that was a good idea when they still had events like the Lupine war and Lodin's death be canon, but it's what it was.

I liked how "the hypocrisy of change" was the book's its big theme. It would be a fairly easy trap to fall into having the Anarchs be the scrappy underdog good guys fighting against The Man. But vampires all turn into The Man as they get older because that's just what they are. The Perth story about the fledgling Anarch rebelling against her own Anarch sire (who's just overthrown a prince!) was the best in the book, IMO, at conveying that attitude.

Anarchs Unbound didn't have an open license to drastically rewrite the setting like V5 did. But even within that limited scope the writers had, they did a great job at making the Anarchs feel revitalized and relevant again.

[CTPhipps]

It's a bit early but I did up my final review of this book for Booknest.EU.

http://booknest.eu/reviews/charles/1766-anarchsunbound

4.5/5

The Anarchs are my favorite faction of Vampire: The Masquerade. The angry resistance to the corrupt Camarilla and yet still moral enough to not give in completely to the Beast like the Sabbat. I fell in love with them in Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines and have been eager for new content regarding them. For those unfamiliar with the Anarchs, they're based on such rebellious modern vampires as Kiefer Sutherland's David in The Lost Boys and Deacon Frost in Blade. Unfortunately, the Anarchs have not really been treated all that well by the setting.

While initially set up to be the primary opposition to the Camarilla by the gameline, it had that role taken over by the Sabbat (who were like Anarchs+). The gameline continually struggled to define what the Anarchs were for and what their relationship to the Camarilla was. Sometimes they were the loyal opposition that were the first line of defense against rampaging shovelheads and other times were actively plotting vioent overthrow of the Princes. Sometimes both at once.

One of the things that I enjoyed about Vampire: The Masquerade 5th Edition was that the Anarchs went from being a third-tier sect to being one of the primary focuses. They were formally separated from the Camarilla and given their own three clans plus both the Caitiff as well as Thin Bloods. I wasn't a huge fan of The Anarchs supplement, though. Which is why if you want to play an Anarch character, I recommend you pick up the V20 supplement Anarchs Unbound. I feel like this is probably the best thing to come out for the Anarch faction throughout all five editions.

Anarchs Unbound gives a history of the Anarch Movement, shares its opinions on various elements of Kindred society, talks how they are (loosely) alligned, how they should deal with a variety of power structures, and also gives a number of interesting backgrounds as well as tools for Thaumaturgically inclined Kindred. Some of this is outdated like the massive focus on how the Anarchs are using the internet no longer applies since the Second Inquisition is monitoring it so closely but others are still very useful for the modern iconoclast.

The best part of the book is probably the fact that it codifies the original Anarch Revolt didn't end with the Convention of Thorns. While the Anarchs split between those who surrendered and those who became the Sabbat, not all of the former gave up the fight completely. The French Revolution and Russian Revolution are revealed to have ties with the Anarchs. I feel the latter and the establishment of the Brujah Council goes a long way to making it clear the Anarchs are a dangerous as well as terrifying movement to the Camarilla. While authoritarian communism isn't what most of the freedom-loving revolutionaries wanted to achieve, it at least shows they weren't harmless for five hundred years either. Some of this was present in the previous Guide to the Anarchs but I feel it was much better established here.

The book introduces the Red Question as a radical new organization within the Anarchs that has the potential to change everything. Sadly, I think they're a bit oversold. Imagined as an Anonymous-esque hacktivist collective, they are stated to be influenced by Randian thought as well as responsible for the 2008 Stockmarket Collapse. If ever there were two things that seemed less like an endorsement to free the masses from Kindred oppression, these are among them. Randian economics being perfect for the Ventrue and the corporations having weathered that better than anyone. It's weird seeing both as Anarch accomplishments.

One thing I did like about this book is it does emphasize the Anarchs are connected to real-life social movements. Things ranging from the socialist movements of the early 20th century to Occupy Wallstreet as well as more radical issues are things that both influence as well as are influenced by the Anarchs. It doesn't necessarily mean that the Anarchs are going to be progressive about their beliefs but they are plugged into the heart of revolution (for good or ill). Anarchs can't agree on what they fight for but they all agree they must fight.

I also feel like the book lacks information on one of the most important groups that should be a bedrock of their membership in Thin Bloods. They are not even acknowledged to exist. I suspect this is due to the fact that Thin Bloods were introduced primarily as a prelude to Gehenna in Vampire: The Masquerade Revised while V20 was a canon agnostic setting. Still, seeing them glossed over even as references are made to things like "Cleavers" and even Gargoyles was a surprise.

Crunch-wise, the book provides a somewhat mixed bag. It gives a good amount of techno-magic that allows vampires to use the internet without detection by kine (though obviously Schreck.net didn't have access to this). It also includes some level 6 Disciplines, which felt off given I don't think many non-diablerist 7th generation Anarchs are going to exist. Some of the Backgrounds were lame with things like "Anarch Status" versus regular status but others like Armory and Communal Haven are very useful. I also likes several of the Merits and Flaws like Prized Patch and Black Sheep. We also get a bunch of solid Anarch archetypes that allow player characters to populate their Movement with quick and easy stats like Barons, Gang Leaders, and Molotovs.

I think the best element of this book is the fact that it really does give a sense of what the Anarchs are about, how they're structured, and how a disordered rabble can still pose a significant threat to the Ivory Tower. I also think that it gives a sense of history and weight to the Anarchs that separates it from the Sabbat and Camarilla. The biggest weaknesses of the book are its overfocus on the internet, technomagic, the Red Question, and First World resistance movements versus a more international attitude. I feel the absence of Maldavis and the Council Wars from Chicago by Night is also a serious misstep. The lack of Thin Bloods and Jenna Cross is also a mistake.

I think Anarchs Unbound is a really solid piece of writing and one of the better supplements from Onyx Path Publishing. While I prefer Beckett's Jyhad Diary and Chicago by Night 5th Edition, those are some of my all-time favorite supplements period. Anarchs Unbound gives us a solid look into how the Movement functions (or doesn't) and tells us why they're rebelling. I think it's an excellent purchase even for 5th Edition gamers who want to fight the power. Ra-ra.

[CTPhipps]

About the anarch childish behaviour, in books as Anarch Cookbook, is hard to take seriously a speech when is full of pranks, jokes and funny games. The focus is put in the rebellion, but a rebellion from a teenager against the system. Not a serious war, with casualties, victims and collateral and political damage. They are young teenage neonates and idealist boys fighting the monolithic Camarilla, represent for the Justicar Cristo Alonso Petrodon, bane of the Anarchs and practically a fascist. I do not think that the Anarchs of 3rd edition were better or in the height of their power, but they are characters fighting a real war (and losing), that adds tragedy, not comedy to the cause. I strongly recommend you to read the Anarch Cookbook after Anarchs Unbound, if the goofy aspects of the tone and the style do not change your opinion, at least you would understand what I am trying to expose.

Well I've read the original but I'm a humor author as well as horror so my opinion might be biased.

[Justycar]

About the anarch childish behaviour, in books as Anarch Cookbook, is hard to take seriously a speech when is full of pranks, jokes and funny games. The focus is put in the rebellion, but a rebellion from a teenager against the system. Not a serious war, with casualties, victims and collateral and political damage. They are young teenage neonates and idealist boys fighting the monolithic Camarilla, represent for the Justicar Cristo Alonso Petrodon, bane of the Anarchs and practically a fascist. I do not think that the Anarchs of 3rd edition were better or in the height of their power, but they are characters fighting a real war (and losing), that adds tragedy, not comedy to the cause. I strongly recommend you to read the Anarch Cookbook after Anarchs Unbound, if the goofy aspects of the tone and the style do not change your opinion, at least you would understand what I am trying to expose.

[CTPhipps]

Best Anarch in Film

Rogue Tremere, Deacon Frost



Why not David from the Lost Boys? It turned out he was answering to his video-store owning sire the entire time!



Shock!

[Grumpy RPG Reviews]

And properly speaking, the Anarch's do not even have all of California. San Fransisco is in someone else's hands.

[CTPhipps]

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.

I don't know if I would agree with that:

1. Anarchs are children: This is one of those things that I often felt was commented on in fandom and I don't know if the book ever actually said it or if it was one of those things that sort of appeared in fandom only to take over the depiction in canon ala the "Technocracy is not just the moral equal of the Traditions but its superior" and "The Traditions will immediately fall to infighting the moment the Union is destroyed."

2. The Anarch Cookbook did have a kind of "undermine the Camarilla's authority via tagging and pranks" but it also had discussion of murdering Princes.

3. Revised is an interesting place to say when the Anarchs became a serious menace because I tend to think of that when they were at their lowest point. That's when the Anarch Free States were destroyed, there was an increased focus on Sabbat vs. Camarilla, and I feel like they were actually considered allies against the Sabbat. Guide to the Anarchs even said most Anarchs wanted to reform the Camarilla.Mind you, it's also when Bloodlines revived interest in them.

4. Salvador's Treason: I think that has been officially retconned as it's mentioned in his Loresheet that he's been subject to a lot of slander and libel like betraying his kind. I actually didn't have a problem with it because there's plenty of ways for Kindred to MAKE people betray their cause even if they don't want to.

5. Salvador being unknown: This makes sense to me because with the Brujah Council and Communism now added to things, the Anarch Free States seems a bit small potatoes. California is impressive, really, but it's not the only game in town. It's an attempt to move beyond the American-centrism of vampire and I approve. Plus, whoever took down Berlin (Rudi? Starek?) is going to have formed their own legend.

[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.

[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.

[CTPhipps]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.