[WIR] Anarchs Unbound - Anarchy in the WOD

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Grumpy RPG Reviews]

How about an ankh that incorporates a middle finger?

[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.)

[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#

[Nicolas Milioni]

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

[CTPhipps]

Chapter 2: part 3: Clans and Bloodlines

This chapter opens with a self-described humorless feminist talking about how the Anarchs attempted to create a post-clan society and how Jeremy MacNeil said, "we are all Clanless now" at the start of the Anarch Free States, unwittingly causing a lot of Anarchs to find him patronizing and also stir up issues among those who took pride in their Clans' history of Rebellion (i.e. Brujah) or wanted to create a lineage to be proud of (i.e. Caitiff ala Panders).

This book retcons some of the information from Guide to the Anarchs as well.

Caitiff

Almost all Caitiff are Anarchs by default due to the fact there's no place for them in Kindred society. They're the backbone of the Anarch movement alongside the Brujah. The thing is that they're a disorganized mess and taken for granted by other Kindred because basic respect is the only thing most want. The attempts to organize them also bother some Anarchs as they fear something like the Panders in the Sabbat who are simultaneously the most Loyalist prone Sabbat and also the most fanatical.0 No mention of the Thin Bloods here but I imagine everything that applies there applies to them.

Brujah

The Brujah cause some Anarchs to get issues because they're supposed to be Post-Clan and the Brujah have a proud Clan Tradition of being rebellious rebels who rebel. I feel like this is something of a dumb idea and I don't think most Anarchs as described care about "post-Clanness" in part because of sections like this. They may not put as much stock in Clan or linegae as, say, the Ventrue but at the very least they know some people can throw cars while others can control minds. It's a biological difference as well as a social one. The Nosferatu, for example, would find it moronic.

Gangrel

The Gangrel joining the Anarchs is kind of a no brainer because they've always been depicted as living the Anarch lifestyle anyway. They nomadically wander around the country and if there's a problem with a Prince, they just leave. I think the Gangrel's biggest problem have often related to their nomadic tendencies. It's why I tend to have Gangrel inhabit city parks, be urban predators (ala City Gangrel), and live on the edge of cities. Basically, my ideal Gangrel vampire? GTA5's Trevor. He lives outside of San Andreas and is a wild animalistic killer. So them joining the Anarchs was a no-brainer.

Gargoyles

Yes, Gargoyles are mentioned as a thing that are part of the Anarchs. Apparently, they exist in sufficient numbers that they are considered more relevant than the Ravnos (more on that later). I think this is a bit much as I'm inclined to think if the Tremere know where a Gargoyle is then they'll do their best to get rid of it or re-acquire control over it. On the other hand, the Anarchs having a bunch of gargoyles on their side massively increases their potential ability to strike back at the Camarilla.

Lasombra

The Lasombra Antitribu are mostly fanatical Camarilla but there's a decent enough number of Lasombra that have taken up with the Anarchs. These actually have a lot of them that the Sabbat don't so much leave alone as never actually notice, so if you want to leave the Sabbat you'd probably have had a much better job there than with the Cammies. Still, they're small in number and don't have the kind of influence they do in the Sabbat. Shame. At the end of the day, they were like the Ferengi.

"We don't want to stop the exploitation. We want to become it."

Malkavians

The Malkavians are something that the Anarchs are iffy about. They have always quietly marginalized them from leadership positions and disdained them due to the fact, well, they're insane. However, this has apparently come to bite them in the ass as due to "all of them being Clanless" that meant a large number of Malkavians had been building up their reputations for decades only to question why they are marginalized after revealing their Clans DRAMATICALLY.
Interestingly, this is actually done by Jason Carl with Therese/Jeanette in LA by Night. Everyone assumes Therese is a Ventrue and Jeanette is a Malkavian.

However, it's changed by the time of 2019 with Therese revealing herself to be Malkavian and playing on the bigotry against the mentally ill to get herself underestimated while raising her own cachet. I think the Malkavians should definitely be a group that's a mainstay of the Anarchs. Mostly because they are people who are a force of chaos and cannot be safely controlled. However, that's not the direction they went for them in V5.

Nosferatu

The Nosferatu have Schrek.net and their new status as internet celebrities as something that causes them to be sympathetic to the Anarch cause. It seems a bit quaint to think that "internet=liberation" given what we know about Russian hackers, Chinese trolls, and things like Cambridge Analytica as well as Facebook. The Anarchs state that the Nosferatu have been emboldened by their internet voice and the internets anonymity however.

Honestly, I feel like the Nosferatu in the Anarchs should not particularly be that separate from the Anarchs in the Camarilla (or the Sabbat for that matter). I've always described the Sabbat and Camarilla Nosferatu as having fundamental irreconcilable differences but they're ones that they'd prefer to debate over vessels in the sewer than kill each other over. This strikes me as the same for Anarchs and Nosferatu.

Gary Golden in LA seems like the kind of guy who is a Camarilla Clan Elder and an Anarch Baron depending on who is talking to him.

Tremere

The Anarchs have become a lot more sympathetic to the Tremere over the years as they've come to view them less as a monolithic organization and more like a bunch of neonates enslaved to their Elders even more so than in other clans. They state that very few survive to defect to the Anarchs due to their blood being tracked like in Dragon Age. Those few Anarch Tremere are mostly double agents working within the Camarilla. I think this is an interesting role but a bit limiting, I think the Tremere are overpowered for being able to hunt down all Tremere escapees.

Tzimisce

The Tzimisce are apparently a thing in the Anarchs which is a really interesting twist. There's only a small number of them but they have been apparently riding with the group since forever. They also talk a lot of smack about the Sabbat due to the fact they "betrayed" the principles of the Anarchs. A lot of Anarchs think these Tzimisce are just spies working for the Sabbat.

Ventrue

The Ventrue are an interesting case with the Anarchs as while everyone looks at them askance publicly, they pretty much rapidly take command of any group they become a part of it. It irritates the author of the article. Personally, I think this is probably accurate as Ventrue are going to have ambitious types who are frozen out of the system. People like Gordon Keaton who would have been a perfect Ventrue Candidate but was a serial killing Anarch because as a Caitiff he couldn't serve the Camarilla.

Independents

This section irritated me because V20 went with the "metaplot agnostic view" so suddenly the Banu Haqim aren't part of the Anarchs anymore after many defected to escape Ur-Shulgi. The Followers of Set are worshipers of a God of Chaos but never considered joining or mentoring the Anarchs, which is probably a good thing as they would turn it into Sabbat 2.0 very quickly. The Giovanni are even worse than the Tremere and I don't disagree it'd be hard to escape them

(I'm surprised they don't send infiltrators to join the group, though).

But the Ravnos? The Ravnos should be a mainstay of the Anarchs. I don't see why they wouldn't be and in previous editions they were.

This book claims they rarely join.

[Leandro16]

Carthians>Anarch
Camarilla>Invictus

There goes my two cents

I think the problem of the anarch is that 90% of their members are just marginal members of the camarilla who do not know what to do with their unlives and thus are easily abused not becuase the camarilla is bad but becuase in general vampires are profesional assholes.The other 10% are the barons and elders who see power in chaneling the rage of an anarch mob and if you look at them they may not be wrong in their strategy becuase a lot of the time Barons=Princes

The funny thing is that the camarilla beneficts the great majority of vampires and offers the vampires an escape from an abusive system by assuming that every vampire is a member of the sect and thuis making moving to another city an option that every vampire has unless he is , blood bonded , on the red list or commited diablerie.

Not to mention that while the camarilla likes ruthless rulers to kept order they don´t like to have a Neron on the frontlines like Lacroix or Sebastian becuase they can be their next victims (Look what happened to the brujah elder and the Malkavian primogen in LA) as consecuence these kind of rules are left behind by their allies who back new challegers unless the prince changes his ways (Lodin vs Maldavis and the Anarch free state is the result of this).

That said the anarch do their work as the "underdog" faction excepcionally well and i love them for that but they don´t shine in any other department becuase of that meanwhile the Carthians offer a ton of posibilites as they actually have a political agenda , present direct conflict against the camarilla way of doing things feudal lord vs democracy all that without mentionating the wide range of political subfaction (soviets , republics , nationalist , liberals , progresist , humanitarian parties etc...) Not to mention that populism , control of propaganda and all that stuff can make them fit the papers of white , black and grey morality quite easily so...

HAIL THE CARTHIAN REVOLUTION

[CTPhipps]

Part of the problem may be that you need a better label than 'Anarch' as that implies some sort of Ayn Randian Bioshock caricature who only cares about their short term desires and interests but not building anything lasting or sustainable. Which isn't true, since you had people like MacNeill and Garcia who clearly WANTED to build something lasting... they just didn't get played up. Its less about 'personal freedom' or 'individuality' and more about fair representation, equality of opportunity, etc. Democratic vs autocratic/aristocratic. Maybe a modernized version of the Dark Ages Prometheans would have been better as an 'anarch' archetype.

Speaking as someone who flirted with pacifistic anarchist thought as part of his political philosophy, there's nothing that pisses me off more than Randian free market capitalist Anarchs (who should all be Ventrue or Ventrue wannabes) than maybe communist apologist radicals. Which I suppose is another way they could go with the Anarchs and show them as fighting. Sadly, despite the fact you have communist Anarchs, Randian Anarchs, and more--we never see any of these guys act like anything other than Street Gang Anarchs ala the Warriors.

My opinion was the Anarchs were created as an aesthetic before they were created as a concept really. The Lost Boys, Near Dark, and other "modern vampires" were created as a way to contrast against the Old World aritstocratic vampires of Dracula and Lestat to a lesser extent. Then Mark Reign Hagen drew from Cyberpunk 2020 (that's not a criticism--draw from the best) with the idea of the Camarilla serving as the megacorporations while the Anarchs would be the street punks

The problem remains the Anarchs remain underdeveloped in terms of what they believe, what they are organized by [such as it is], and who they are. Eventually, the Anarchs had a lot of this finally defined but I actually think this book is really the first place where we get concrete answers. I need to do a comparison e-mail with the Guide to the Anarchs but that book suffered a lot for the fact it depicted the Anarchs as interested in reforming the Camarilla. Which...nothing I have seen in ANY book before or since implied that.

I do think the Carthians from V:TR are pretty much closer to how I would handle the Anarchs in V5 and beyond. The Brujah were the Clan of Philosopher Kings and way too many people forget that while Brujah are angry, they are not STUPID nor do they go around embracing the stupid.

At least with the thin blood/duskborn you could play this up - wanting to be treated as actual vampires with a say in things, rather than something to be feared, hated, or purged. There's even a 'old vs new' dynamic there (the 'old' traditions vs the younger and more modern ideas and mindset.)

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.

Eh, some but not all. I think the issue is that the ones who are assholes should be the ones who highlight the flaws in the system - the corruption, the lack of representation, the emphasis on tradition and stability (which maintain those who hold the power and influence). IT's those factors which fuck it up for the ones who aren't assholes and who may actually care about ensuring the Camarilla serves its idealized purpose rather than being the Vampiric Old boys club who are intent on keeping the younger upstarts under the elder's thumb where they belong.

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.

It's that sort of situation that breeds the sort of conflicts that bring out the worse in vampiric nature and replay thoes things that highlight their cursed nature. They can't get along, they can't lead or rule effectively (for any lenght of time) -they can only lurk, hide, and be parasites.

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.

That might reflect that Anarchs were the 'throwaway' category, a bit like how Caitiff were also an 'everything else' dumping grounds. It's hard to define something when you're treating it like that. On the other hand, that leaves things more open ended and easier to adapt with fewer contradictions. In that respect I can see why V5 dropped the Sabbat in favor of Camarilla vs Anarch... the Sabbat really didn't seem to have a niche (at least currently) that the anarch's couldn't fill.. but there were niches the Anarchs could fill that the Sabbat could not.

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.

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).

And then you get the thin bloods and the evolution to duskborn (which I think is where the Anarchs might have started to become distinctive compared to the other sects.. but also feel like they've subsumed alot of previous ideas about Anarchs or Caitiff. Which is a shame given you had stuff like 'Outcasts' that was still pretty interesting.)

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.

I thought both games did. But then again its easier to do that when you have a medium that works on multiple levels (graphics, sound AND text/dialogue) to convey the meaning. Whereas a book has text and art (at best) to convey it. Much harder to condense. But even then you had stuff barely touched on (Redmeption did more to show off the Society of Leopold than Bloodlines did with Stripper-Nun.)

To be fair, the Society of Leopold had a big role in Bloodlines. They were just utterly incompetant.

[CTPhipps]

Chapter Two part 2: Social Currency

First, there's a couple of things I didn't cover fron the Traditions section before I move onto the Clans of the Anarchs.

Prestation

This is something the Anarchs publicly disdain but privately practice. While I tend to dislike, "The Anarchs are exactly like the Camarilla because HYPOCRITES! [and apparently we can't come up with anything new.]" I don't have a problem with this attitude. If there's one thing that I think an Anarch and Camarilla person should agree on, it's the very simple concept of, "YOU OWE ME." I can't imagine any Anarch, be he a Baron or even Smiling Jack that keeps any amount of prestige if he gets help from someone then turns his back on them. Some things are universal and if you go against them, then you are taking your unlife with you.

Doc Holliday in the urban fantasy show, Wynonna Earp, had a pretty good quote regarding it:

In the show Doc Holliday and Bobo Del Ray are two mortal enemies but both hate Constance the witch. Bobo has captured Constance and Doc needs her. However, Bobo owes Doc and is surrounded by his men. By all rights. Doc should be dead, yet...

Doc: Now did you or did you not vow to deliver me the witch?

Bobo: That was before your betrayed me. Now, now. You have made similar assurances to individuals here who have done much worse. You've made promises of glory. Promises of escape. Now, if you were to renege on one gentleman's agreement, well, who is to believe that you would guarantee fulfillment of another?

Bobo: It's not that simple.

Doc: Oh, but it was, in the time from which we all hail from. When a man's word was all that he had.

Because that's how vampirism and deals work. You need to be a man of your deals because that's the only thing that allows Kindred to get ANYTHING done.

Blood Bonds and Vinculi

The Anarchs are against the Blood Bond. This is no surprise here because, well, why wouldn't they be? The Blood Bond is explicitly forbidden among Anarchs and if you're found out as having engaged in it like Juggler was in Gary, Indiana then you're likely to lose any and all cachet among the Anarchs. We see it used as a punishment by Annabelle in LA By Night (the web series) but it's for someone that is a complete asshole victim that the gang he's bound to enjoy abusing. The Vinculum is a grayer area among the Anarchs because it was they (not the Sabbat) who came up with it in the first place. Sabbat defectors and a group of ancient 1000+ year old Anarch groups (which exist still surprisingly) know it. The Anarchs aren't fond of the Vinculum either but see it is as a kind of bulwark against single-person Blood Bonds.

Anarchs do share blood all the time for one dose as a means of establishing a bond for teaching out of clan disciplines to one another. I think this is the only time it's established that you have to share blood in order to learn an OOC discipline, though.

Diablerie

The Anarchs have a serious diablerie problem. Well, sort of. It's stated that Anarchs don't engage in diablerie on each other as a general rule, not even in the constant regular turf dust-ups. However, there are roving gangs of Anarch diablerists who kill Camarilla members in order to steal their blood. These have given the Anarchs as a whole a bad reputation. This is different than the Sabbat where it's not RAMPANT but it is a thing and I liked that mention.

It's implied that a lot of Anarch leaders would like to be a lot harder on diablerie than they are because it's such a primal fear of Kindred. However, they can't because it's more or less confirmed that most Anarch leaders of old have hit the hearts blood one or two times at least. Salvador, Agata Starek doesn't even hide it, and certainly Tyler. It's just one of the perks of the job.

I feel like they should someday address The Wanderer from Diablerie: Mexico and how the Drowned REALLY ****ing hate Anarchs or the Camarilla in part because some random Chicago goons traveled down to murder their god for no other reason than a quick pick me up. As in Die Hard with a Vengeance: Simon: There's a difference between not liking one's brother and not caring when some dumb Irish flatfoot drops him out of a window.

My general opinion is that you can get away with diablerie among the Anarchs as long as it's Sabbat or a Camarilla Elder but do it to your fellow Anarchs and they'll kill you.

[Black Fox]

Honestly, I think that a section about it would have been good just to show a "what not to do" and "how a seemingly successful revolt can go horribly wrong." Maldavis could be someone that is referred to as an Anarch leader who put too much faith in making inroads with Elders (Critias, Annabelle), trusted her subordinates too much (Uriah), and possibly underestimated just how dangerous or willy a Ventrue opponent could be.

Hmm, it's been a while since I read CbN, but I don't think that'd be the popular perception about Maldavis. I think the support of the anti-Lodin elders behind Maldavis was completely secret. Maldavis herself didn't even know about it. So she wouldn't be known as someone who tried to make inroads with the Elders. And Uriah's betrayal was also not known. He's still an Anarch that follows Maldavis, not a known traitor.

I would also say that if Lodin was considered to be underestimated, it has to be because his post Council Wars reputation would have to be spectacular. By the time Maldavis opposed him, Lodin had already overthrown the existing Prince of Chicago (Maxwell) in 1871, defeated Modius and the original Socialist anarchs in 1890s-1920s, and destroyed much of the Anarch Movement outside LA in 1968. So if Maldavis challenged Lodin, almost won, and then suddenly lost, I don't think people could be so harsh as to say, "she's a schmuck for underestimating Lodin." It'd be, "I thought we finally had that SOB this time. That guy simply can't be defeated. Time to simply stop trying to get rid of him and try something else in another city."

Of course, she's still someone who lead the Anarchs to defeat, and a lot of them died. You can only lose so many battles before people give up on you. In the original CbN, the potential existed at least, for Maldavis to come back. It's just that by now, subsequent events would have overtaken her.

[Mister_Dunpeal]

I feel like the Anarch cause was much better handled in Vampire: The Dark Ages and it's probably why, again, a lot of people went with the Sabbat (even though Modern Anarchs have every bit as much title to being ancestors of the First Anarch Revolt as their pseudo-ISIS brethren). In the Dark Ages, Anarchs had a lot of very legitimate complaints:

* The Blood Bond
* Being used as cannon fodder against the Inquisition
* Being forced to serve your sire for centuries after your Embrace.
* Your sire having the authority to kill you at will.
* The High Clans vs. Low Clan distinction
* The Big Kindred Civil Wars (The Omen War for example) that no one actually cared about but the people at the top.
* Princes being even more tyrannical, petty, and mouth breather (if they breathed) than they are in the next century.

I feel like if you want the Anarchs to make sense in the Modern Nights that you should look back to the Dark Ages and go, "have things really improved all that much?" I mean, there's still plenty of Dominate, Presence, Blood Bonding, casual tyranny, and random executions going on.

Part of the problem may be that you need a better label than 'Anarch' as that implies some sort of Ayn Randian Bioshock caricature who only cares about their short term desires and interests but not building anything lasting or sustainable. Which isn't true, since you had people like MacNeill and Garcia who clearly WANTED to build something lasting... they just didn't get played up. Its less about 'personal freedom' or 'individuality' and more about fair representation, equality of opportunity, etc. Democratic vs autocratic/aristocratic. Maybe a modernized version of the Dark Ages Prometheans would have been better as an 'anarch' archetype.

At least with the thin blood/duskborn you could play this up - wanting to be treated as actual vampires with a say in things, rather than something to be feared, hated, or purged. There's even a 'old vs new' dynamic there (the 'old' traditions vs the younger and more modern ideas and mindset.)

Long Digression on the Tyranny of Princes
Basically, I think that Princes should be dickheads. I don't think this is a very controversial statement but it's almost SHOCKING to some players who think of the Prince as the pinnacle of things to aspire to in Vampire: The Masquerade or are used to taking orders in other games. One of the things that many people comment on is that Bloodlines made the Anarchs seem a lot more sensible to players than they had before.

Eh, some but not all. I think the issue is that the ones who are assholes should be the ones who highlight the flaws in the system - the corruption, the lack of representation, the emphasis on tradition and stability (which maintain those who hold the power and influence). IT's those factors which fuck it up for the ones who aren't assholes and who may actually care about ensuring the Camarilla serves its idealized purpose rather than being the Vampiric Old boys club who are intent on keeping the younger upstarts under the elder's thumb where they belong.

It's that sort of situation that breeds the sort of conflicts that bring out the worse in vampiric nature and replay thoes things that highlight their cursed nature. They can't get along, they can't lead or rule effectively (for any lenght of time) -they can only lurk, hide, and be parasites. \

I think one of the issues that the Anarchs ran into was a lack of personality. There's literally hundreds of vampires we can point to in the Camarilla with varying degrees of ties to the organization and the same can be said for the Sabbat. Jan Pieterzoon, the Justicars, the Archons, all of the Princes, the Primogen, and the Elders are heavily invested in the Camarilla. The same for the Sabbat where it's an actual military organization. Everyone in the Sabbat from the most common boots on the ground to the Regent is heavily invested in it.

Chicago by Night 1st Edition had a lot of Anarchs and so did Los Angeles by Night but, honestly, not many other books actually had many Anarchs as characters. The Children of the Inquisition, Children of the Revolution (WTH? I just realized that), and plenty of the actual city books just kind of ignore the Anarchs in cities. I mean, there's no serious organized Anarch factions in the Clan Novels, the Transyalvania Chronicles (since they become the Sabbat or don't), the Giovanni Chronicles, and so on.

There's just not that many characters that embody the Anarch movement.

That might reflect that Anarchs were the 'throwaway' category, a bit like how Caitiff were also an 'everything else' dumping grounds. It's hard to define something when you're treating it like that. On the other hand, that leaves things more open ended and easier to adapt with fewer contradictions. In that respect I can see why V5 dropped the Sabbat in favor of Camarilla vs Anarch... the Sabbat really didn't seem to have a niche (at least currently) that the anarch's couldn't fill.. but there were niches the Anarchs could fill that the Sabbat could not.

And then you get the thin bloods and the evolution to duskborn (which I think is where the Anarchs might have started to become distinctive compared to the other sects.. but also feel like they've subsumed alot of previous ideas about Anarchs or Caitiff. Which is a shame given you had stuff like 'Outcasts' that was still pretty interesting.)

Was it silly in Gehenna that the PCs were fighting Withered Antediluvians? Okay, yes, but it was silly good fun. I also think being political leaders in a city isn't that big of a contrast.

I guess it depends on how you considered them 'fighting' and why. We could get back to speculation about Redemption in this respect, for example. Similar 'YMMV' principles apply I think. I mean personally the idea of some sort of vampiric rebellion against the Vampire Empire of Blood, even in a post-apocalyptic setting, has a certain appeal even if you aren't fighting the Antediluvians directly.

I feel like Bloodlines did the best streamlining of a lot of silly concepts in V:TM to understandable one. They had the Camarilla, Anarchs, Sabbat, and a lot of other crazy concepts all existing side-by-side without problems. I think the Inconnu, Assamites, and Followers of Set were some of the few things that wasn't fit into the story anywhere. Mind you, I think the Cathayans weren't necessarily a great idea but while as stereotypical as they were, I also think that they managed them well because Chinatown also had a lot of other diverse characters who weren't Orientalist stereotypes.

I thought both games did. But then again its easier to do that when you have a medium that works on multiple levels (graphics, sound AND text/dialogue) to convey the meaning. Whereas a book has text and art (at best) to convey it. Much harder to condense. But even then you had stuff barely touched on (Redmeption did more to show off the Society of Leopold than Bloodlines did with Stripper-Nun.)

I think the idea of having some of the Gehenna elements as canonical isn't necessarily a bad idea. I think saying the Withering is canonical and maybe effecting those Methuselahs who stayed behind from the Middle East isn't a bad idea. I mean, limiting Ur-Shulgi to only 5 dots in any Discipline just doesn't make any damn sense. His whole thing is that he's able to do things that no other vampire can do and terrifying on godlike levels. I also like the Cyclical Gehenna and just straight up saying the Gehenna War (whatever it is) is the Gehenna of the past 1000 years and when it's done, things will be settled for the next 1000 years.

I think less in terms of 'canon' and more of a.. narrative tapestry I guess. Canon strikes me as too inflexible, too religious and dogmatic. It doesn't give you any leeway to adapt (at least not without conflict.) Whereas a 'tapestry' I will unweave and re-knit in a different pattern if the previous one didn't fit. The idea threads are still valid, they just have to be connected in different ways. Surprisingly enough, I find this often works quite well.

In my games, I had it revealed that the Imbued are actually a form of Demon from Demon: The Fallen. They're angels that have escaped from hell but have decided to become full blown Redeemers and going to try to destroy the forces of Hell as well as Oblivion to make up for their past crimes. It could be they're angels from Heaven too but I kind of like that no one knows where they went (same with God).

Given how many of the different systems involve some sort of spiritual/supernatural element 'embedding' itself in a human (whether the vampiric curse, the changelings, Mage Avatars, The Fallen, etc.) that would fit right in.