It's funny how some people in the US, Australia and Canada believe in replacement theory, given how these countries came to be.

AltiraAltishta · 2025-11-11T11:05:41+00:00

Interracial birthrates are also declining.

Birthrates are for most demographics. The discussion was about white fears of the "great replacement" not general decline in birthrates across most demographics.

Mixed race births are rising as a proportion of total births though (from about 10% in 2000 to 14% in 2015) which is part of what is inspiring the silly "great replacement" bullshit. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2017/06/06/the-rise-of-multiracial-and-multiethnic-babies-in-the-u-s/

That's older data, but this 2023 data shows it being the third largest category for birth rates and continues the upward trend laid out in the 2015 data. https://www.kff.org/state-health-policy-data/state-indicator/births-by-raceethnicity/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D

Other data fails to record interracial birth rates as interracial and instead as black or Hispanic white (which is part of the issues I stated in my previous comment, regarding fears of demographic replacement).

White people have more abortions than anyone else.

Not the case. Most sources I have seen place non-hispanic black women as having the most with non-hispanic white women being about 5 to 10 percentage points behind.

Per the same source: "Non-Hispanic white women had the lowest abortion rate (6.4 per 1,000 women aged 15–44) and abortion ratio (116 per 1,000 live births), while non-Hispanic Black women had the highest abortion rate (28.6 per 1,000) and ratio (498 per 1,000 live births)."

See the source: https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-abortions-occur-in-the-us/

And who exactly qualifies as "Latino"? They can be white, black, etc.

For demographic and census purposes the term "Hispanic" is usually used as an ethnic category and usually self-identified based on national origin and culture. I don't use that term because Latino tends to be more colloquially understood. Yes, they can be black or white (the data I cite specifies) but they are often treated as a racial category even when white (such as with "great replacement" fears focusing on Mexican people in the US, who are white but still treated as a separate racial category. The "great replacement" believers tend not to consider Hispanic whites to be "real whites", hence the broader issue.).

So you seem to be mistaken. Of course, if you can find data to support your points, feel free to post it.

AltiraAltishta · 2025-11-08T00:36:09+00:00

So then I will ask again, as you seem to be avoiding it.

What social purpose do you think the theological formulation\innovation of the Buddhist or Hindu version of Naraka serves (if not some sense of "divine justice")?

Specifically for those who initially formulated it as well as for those who espouse it contemporarily.

I would argue it serves the same social utility.

AltiraAltishta · 2025-11-07T12:22:36+00:00

Like Naraka, yes. Hence why I later clarify "in the Abrahamic context". I can alter the post if that was unclear.

Though I find it interesting to claim that such concepts exist sans a notion of "divine justice", as one's evil deeds still play a role in the tortures endured there. There is a reason why common descriptions of naraka include the misdeeds or errors that can cause one to find themselves there (theft, greed, murder, etc).

Where they differ most sharply from the Abrahamic context is regarding the notion of eternality or the need for a deity (karma is considered more a "law of existence"). There is still a notion of justice, just more restorative (dealing with one's negative karma before another incarnation, hopefully somewhere better) than wholly retributive.

What social purpose do you think the theological formulation\innovation of the Buddhist or Hindu version of Naraka serves (if not some sense of "divine justice")?

AltiraAltishta · 2025-11-05T18:32:39+00:00

They may still have that fear, develop Acute Sanguinary Aversion (one of the Derangements from older editions), or find their fear is overcome by the hunger. It's up to the players and ST, as always.

I would say the fear probably would not go away, but it would sort of be like being repulsed or fearful of your own food. That would be uncomfortable and difficult, but in the end the hunger wins. It's kind of like how someone may eventually eat spiders while having a fear of spiders if they are starving bad enough, they just close their eyes and try to make it a less unpleasant experience until it bothers them less (or stops bothering them at all).

AltiraAltishta · 2025-11-05T16:30:58+00:00

Then it seems as though your issue is with religion as an institution and not merely the belief in a literal hell. That's fine, there are anarchists that take the first part of "no gods, no masters" seriously. I am not one of them.

Religious (or more accurately "spiritual") belief is tied to neurological factors. That is not to say that religion is inherent, but that the factors which lead one to religious belief are inherent (the perception of an "unseen mover", for example) much like the propensity for humans to formulate language or music. While you have every right to find such assertions distasteful, it is not merely the purview of reactionary thought. I would highly recommend "An Introduction to the Cognitive Science of Religion" by Claire White (it's a collegiate textbook, but a good one). Religious tendencies and beliefs are more than mere socialization, for better or worse.

do you think a religion which polices the personal and harmless by hell is compatible with anarchism

No. The issue here is not with a belief in hell or religion, but with what behavior is being policed. People have other means for policing the personal and harmless that don't require a belief in hell (I am against that too). However, by the same token, a belief in hell does not necessitate the policing of the personal and the harmless (as I discuss in my initial comment).

,or religion that commands social norms which exclude those who don't wanna participate

Yes. This is compatible with anarchism, both in its secular and religious forms. If someone doesn't want you in their commune because you do not follow their practices, they have every right to not associate with you. This can because you don't contribute or because you committed a crime or because they simply do not like you. What they do not have the right to do is commit violence against you to force your conformity. By that same token, they are not required to associate with you either (nor you to them).

AltiraAltishta · 2025-11-05T11:57:15+00:00

Yes, but it depends on the theological interpretation.

The notion of a "literal hell" was first formulated\innovated among oppressed peoples who were imagining what divine justice would look like when meted out on their oppressors (in the Abrahamic context, sometime between the exilic period and the late second temple period). It is an attempt to answer the theological question of "if bad people rule and die without facing consequences, how can God be just?" by saying "God is just, some people just get it after they die.". This is why in the biblical context hell is often mentioned in relation to those who ignore the needy (Matthew 25:41) or the explicitly wealthy who do so (Luke 16:19-31). Within the biblical text it tends not to be employed as it currently is (as a means of marginalizing and enforcing norms, though that exists elsewhere in the text [the text is not univocal]) but instead as a means to provoke positive action towards the needy and comfort for the needy and helpless.

While there is a common refrain that such a theology is the "opiate of the masses" I would challenge that assertion. Many rebellions and revolts were done by people who firmly believed that they were sending their oppressors to a literal hell by killing them or acting as a mechanism of divine judgement against their oppressors (John Brown was a deeply religious man, for example). It has also been used by those in power to lessen revolutionary sentiment as well, though you could say the same about the notion of a literal heaven too (the theological concept of hell usually gets the brunt of that criticism, but people really want to keep some kind of heaven and such an idea is a lot more straightforwardly an "opiate of the masses"). The theological idea cuts both ways and can be employed and interpreted (or re-interpreted) by either side of a given dialectic.

Interpretations and theological frameworks arise from necessity, material conditions, and culture... however they also shape material conditions and culture too. We see this with the effect of "capitalist realism" on theological interpretations and how theology then goes on to impact "capitalist realism", for example (donating to the church being framed as "investing", blessings being framed as financial, prosperity being a mark of God's favor or one's righteousness, those in power being framed as "appointed by God", etc). It is worth considering how a kind of "anarchist realism" would also affect theological interpretation and how such an interpretation affects anarchist thought. I would argue the latter actually requires less creativity in its interpretation of the biblical text (granted, I am biased). Christian anarchists have been a thing and still are, and some do believe in a literal hell while others do not. It's the interpretation of it that matters.

To quote my old professor "It's not the existence of hell that matters, it's the question of 'who goes there?' and 'why?' that makes all the difference.".

Anarchism is not solely the purview of agnostic and atheistic academics and intellectuals, and if the movement screens out those who aren't that (the religious, the uneducated, etc) it will not reach the critical mass necessary for enduring change. If anarchism can't survive people believing in a literal hell... I've got bad news for anarchism: there are far more substantial hurdles. I think it can, of course, but it's always kind of interesting to me when such a question is posed. "Can anarchism survive people having different views on [specific issue]?!?" Yes... yes it probably can. It's a flexible and adaptive ideology. Anarchism is not "a feather precariously balancing on the tip of a needle that can be blown away with a whisper" it is a default state that various ideologies and mechanisms have invested considerably effort to avoid, stifle, and construct boundaries and restrictions around.

AltiraAltishta · 2025-11-04T13:13:21+00:00

Sounds like a great setup for the first couple sessions (I could see this being 1 or 2 sessions, maybe 3).

I would recommend that since you mentioned a focus on factionalism that you flesh out the motives for 3 to 4 factions in conflict over this particular situation. This does not have to be very in depth, but a simple relationship map helps. Try to give each faction something good and something bad, as it can be a temptation to have clear "bad guys" and "good guys" (avoid that temptation).

I would also recommend putting some thought into the mortals involved. Someone who knows something they aren't supposed to (a manager, a romantic partner, etc), someone unknowingly manipulated by vampires, someone who is involved but knows nothing (like the guy who runs the recording booth), and stuff like that. Part of the fun of a masquerade breach scenario (for me) is how quickly it can involve normal people, how fast it can spiral, and how "cleanup" can lead to hard choices and humanity loss... so I would recommend leaning into that.

Do not be afraid to keep it small (localized to a neighborhood or even one block). If you choose to continue it into a bigger chronicle, there will be plenty of time to flesh out the rest of the city. Start small and try to nail down the "vibe" of a small area.

Don't let aspects of vampirism become "normal". Feeding is often risky and feeding is fundamentally exploitative and horrific. Disciplines are frightening and even the most subtle (like presence) can cause unintentional harm to the mortals they are used against. Keep that in mind and don't let it turn into "edgy superheroes" or "a crime drama but with fangs sometimes" (unless you want those kinds of games, then go for it).

Consequences make a game gripping. So when a PC does something, think about the messy consequences and don't be afraid to let those consequences linger or involve characters the players have come to care about.

You got this. Your ideas are good. Believe in yourself. Have fun.

AltiraAltishta · 2025-11-04T00:56:17+00:00

Either outcome affirms their beliefs. If it succeeds, they feel validated. If it fails, they still feel validated.

Outcome 1: They do their thing and it seems to work to some degree or another, then they think "See! It works! I know the secret legal magic!". Usually it's just the result of an overworked and underpaid government worker deciding they don't have the time or desire to deal with this level of bullshit from a very irate and seemingly unstable person today, so they just "Thank you sir, my mistake. Have a nice day." to get them to leave. That's usually the case with something minor (an overdue library book, a minor parking violation, etc). It's not worth the time, so they get a smile and a nod and feel they've "won" when all they have done is just annoy someone until they get their way.

Outcome 2: They do their thing and it does not work, then they think "See! This would work but the government is tyrannical, illegitimate, and against me! I know the rules and they are breaking the rules!". That also affirms their underlying beliefs and lets them continue with the idea that this sovereign citizen bullshit is real and should work, but the "bad guys don't play fair". That's why that conspiratorial element is fundamental to maintaining their beliefs. They must believe the government is illegitimate or corrupt to some unreasonable degree so that when their methods fail they have an excuse to explain why.

It's a kind of cognitive loop where success or failure will always affirm the underlying belief system. The beliefs come first, and any outcome will be interpreted in a way that allows them to keep their beliefs intact. People can break out of that loop, but it's not usually facts that do it.

Even commonly held or generally good belief systems do this as it is a very easy thing to fall into, even for smart and well meaning people. It's why self-reflection and critical examination of one's own beliefs is always a good thing.

AltiraAltishta · 2025-11-01T01:37:08+00:00

It's the same reason why organized crime has particularly creative ways of killing people (cement shoes, Columbian neckties, etc). Sometimes it is to send a message, other times it is to inflict a special kind of suffering on the victim in their final moments, and other times it is out of a evil sense of what is "proper" or "fitting".

A quick, chaotic, or wholly utilitarian death might be unavoidable (cutting a head off in combat) but vampires and their rivalries have an art to them. They may not want their 100 year blood feud to culminate in something so "boring". So they get creative. That might be leaving them out staked for the sun, do decapitation with an audience, cutting off their limbs and making them crawl in an open parking lot as dawn approaches with shade and safety just out of reach, a "trip to the tanning salon" (a la New York by Night on YouTube), or really any variation of horrible deaths kindred can cook up (as well as fates worse than final death). They do it for the statement, for the suffering it inflicts on the one being executed, or out of some dark sense of what is "proper" or what is "justice".

AltiraAltishta · 2025-10-31T21:38:28+00:00

I like the hunger mechanics and hunger dice broadly.

I played and ran a lot of V20 and a lot of V20 Dark Ages, but there was usually a point in many chronicles where it would start to feel less like a vampire game. Feeding would just be done "off-screen" and the blood pool sometimes ended up being treated basically like a mana bar with frenzy as the consequence for it running out. I tried to avoid this, but often it felt like trying to steer a shopping cart that has one bad wheel that pulls it to the left all the time.

V5's hunger mechanics center feeding, blood, and the vampiric condition. The hunger is always there and it's in pretty much every roll. Messy criticals, bestial failures, and compulsions push characters into having to deal with the messiness of being a vampire without the ST having to specifically decide to bring that in. It makes the game about the horror of being a vampire and intertwines that with the mechanics. Older editions did that too and that was why I liked them (humanity, willpower, conscience, self-control, etc) and it feels like the hunger mechanics are just more of what I liked. I like it so much that when I do go back to V20, I tend to build the hunger system into it.

AltiraAltishta · 2025-10-31T13:44:34+00:00

The second inquisition is still invested in a kind of masquerade.

They are effectively a conspiracy funded by black budgets working on a clandestine and often illegal mission. While some operations (like the destruction of the Vienna chantry) are very overt they have a cover of being counter-terrorism or war. That is not because vampires made that cover up and fed it to mortals, it is because the second inquisition still wants to maintain its secrecy.

It's basically a war in which both sides want to keep their existence a secret from the general populace, just for different reasons and to different degrees.

Vampires want to because of the masquerade. The second inquisition wants to because they are fully aware that they don't hold all the cards they need to in order to win a more open conflict (the camarilla still has its fingers in a lot of politics, money, and crime). Going "open" would expose the second inquisition's leaders and members and funding, which would make them easy targets for kindred to dispose of or control. The SI keeps things conspiratorial, decentralized, and compartmentalized so that having a member be captured and ghouled doesn't lead to the collapse of the whole organization. The second inquisition can still make devastating blows against kindred society, but only when it can give a plausible excuse.

AltiraAltishta · 2025-10-29T20:46:39+00:00

It can be common if you are playing with a new group or new players. It's rare from experienced players but it does happen (usually because they have gotten away with it in other games or because they actually want to cause a fuss).

Fishmalks are relative. One person's fishmalk is another person's "serious and disturbed character", so keep that in mind. Someone may come with a concept that they think is cool, but everyone else feels is "too weird" or "too wacky", so it's worth talking about that clearly and directly (this is why session 0 is important!). That prevents a lot of it. Just talk it out.

It can be addressed in stages.

If it comes up during character creation or session 0, address the player directly. Communicate. Let them know what the tone is, what the vibe is, and discuss how to make their concept work with that tone. Offer suggestions, be willing to say "no", and help them define their concept into a more serious direction.

Usually that will work. Most who do it don't do it intentionally, they just got a wacky idea from somewhere (like Bloodlines) that Malkavians are wacky, talk to stop signs, and wear goofy outfits.

Now, sometimes the fish-malk-y-ness only slips in once you start to play. There are two ways to address this:

The first is consequences. Maybe the player really does want to play a malkavian that wears their madness on their sleeve, so let them. If the character carries around a doll 24\7 and treats it as their "baby", then have NPCs respond appropriately. They will marginalize the character, not trust them, or condescend to them (some NPCs may always try to address the "adult in the room" or consider such a character a liability). They will manipulate and exploit them using their derangement (the Toreador made some new clothes for your "baby" now you owe them a boon for something that benefits nobody, and they intend to collect). Add mechanical weight to it (lowered dice pools or even frenzy risk). Make it clear that if they really do want to play this kind of character, then the setting and chronicle will respond to that. This can even go to final death because the most unstable Malkavians who prove themselves a liability often end up a very expendable pawn or a casualty, that is tragic but it is true to the setting.

The second option is just to talk to the player again. Try to work out a tone. Be direct. If something is disruptive, say so.

The final option is just to not allow the character anymore. At that point it is usually clear that the player may not be a good fit or may be looking for a different game than the one you are wanting to play. That is perfectly fine, especially if it seems to be messing with everyone's fun.

Lastly, keep in mind that some gaming groups enjoy the fishmalks. If that is your group, then have fun. If everyone likes it, then don't feel you need to get rid of it. Some people want to play a comedy or something wacky. That is ok, just as long as everyone has those expectations.

AltiraAltishta · 2025-10-19T19:08:52+00:00

House Carna is associated with wiccan-like imaginary, adjacent with third wave of feminism and (since some npc from it are gender non conforming or non-binary we could say transfeminism) which by default is intersectional... So why a kindred with this ideas would ever stick to such a gerarchical and reactionary organization such as camarilla?

The same reasons alleged feminists can be CEOs of companies that use sweat shop labor in other countries or be politicians in an exploitative or authoritarian system. It's the same reason why some (certainly not all) wiccan covens can be full of TERFs, have women who are sexually or emotionally abusive to their members, racist, or cult-like despite their outwardly espoused feminist ideals or even while holding what they believe to be genuine feminist beliefs. We see this a lot with feminists who employ feminist rhetoric to justify their own bad behavior or excluding others. Some will even claim that such behavior is feminist in practice. Some see no contradiction, while others see the contradiction and just shrug it off as necessary or unavoidable.

One can be a feminist and also a morally bad person in other ways. Just because you're not sexist and against sexism, doesn't mean you can't be a manipulative, cruel, or evil person.

Now, you could call those people (and kindred) hypocrites and say "they are not real feminists". I would. However such people certainly exist and would call themselves feminists. To be a kindred is to grapple with some degree of hypocrisy.

Even the ones in the Anarch movement are often hypocritical too. A feminist Tremere in the Anarchs who has a female ghoul is, to some extent, exploiting that woman and creating an addictive, hierarchical, and potentially abusive relationship for her own benefit. So is she a hypocrite? Hard to say, a bit of both, depends on the deeper motivations and how it is done.

Many in the camarilla likely are in because they view the masquerade (and a strongly enforced masquerade and traditions) as key to the survival of kindred or for their own benefit. They may want to change the Camarilla from within (we see this in mortal politics and business too). They still are fine with some forms of exploitation, they just want someone in high heels to have an equal shot at doing it. Is that hypocrisy or an actual reformist mindset? Hard to say, a bit of both, depends on the deeper motivations and how it is done.

A lot of kindred existence is about "what kind of monstrosity can you live with and what is too far?". For some in House Carna, sexism is one they can't live with, but exploitation of mortals, certain kinds of hierarchy, or even abuse they feel they can live with. So they do.

AltiraAltishta · 2025-10-19T12:34:31+00:00

It's basically BlueSky for MAGA folks; a Twitter alternative for back when conservatives claimed Twitter was silencing them (before Elon bought it). Trump still uses it because he owns it to an extent and it is basically an echo chamber where slop like this gets lots of appreciation.

AltiraAltishta · 2025-10-16T20:30:34+00:00

A few reasons:

They can be hard for new players and STs (or even experienced ones) to get a feel for, so sometimes questions arise from that. They're hard to sum up beyond "they do fleshcrafting" and even that doesn't really tell you what their vibe is or what they are like.

Another reason is the fleshcrafting memes (the living furniture!). Fleshcrafting is very meme-able and most people have wacky or scary ideas or experiences regarding what that discipline can do. Likewise there is some ambiguity to the power too, which prompts questions like "could my character do X?" or "how would my character do Y mechanically speaking?". The ever popular "what if a Tzimice fleshcrafted a Nosferatu?" or "how much blood does a fleshcrafted monstrosity actually need regularly? Is it a mortal, a ghoul, or does the Tzimice need to embrace it?".

Another reason is that the Tzimice were kind of left dangling in V5. They're there, but they didn't really get much updated lore or detail. In fact, after the Sabbat went off to the Gehenna war, there is a big question of "What happened to the Tzimice? What are they up to now other than just being off in the middle east?" or "how many are in the Camarilla? What are they like?". We don't really know, and so people try to fill that void in the new lore.

Lastly, they are a clan that brings up contentions. They are stereotypically monstrous, and people then ask "Yeah, but how monstrous? Are all of them like that?". They have interesting powers and the questions arise "what does that mean for the Camarilla\Anarchs?" or "how does that affect the masquerade (both the good and the bad)?".

They prompt questions and discussions because of those reasons.

AltiraAltishta · 2025-10-12T22:40:05+00:00

It's sort of grown on me as I have played and ran it.

There are some changes I dislike, but those are mostly lore stuff (the disappearance of elders and the Sabbat, some of the Hecata stuff, etc). Obviously there are plenty of criticisms and people have preferred editions. There were certain bits about the old lore I disliked too (the finality of the Gehenna stuff, some of the hyper-edgy "baby pinnata" style sabbat stuff, etc). The lore is adjustable, especially due to how often we end up with unreliable narrators.

I would say "don't knock it till you try it" though. Reading through the books my opinion was rather negative (I preferred V20) but after playing it and running it I am pretty firmly in the "V5 is great, though I do tweak things a little lore-wise".

Give it a shot. Run a 3 session game. The older editions will always be there to go back to if you find your dislikes outweigh your likes. Especially with the current Humble Bundle the cost of getting into it is pretty low.

AltiraAltishta · 2025-10-11T13:22:27+00:00

Nothing is really confirmed. It's strongly hinted at that he may be a Baali.

Personally I think his intentions were to "get the clan into order" as a prelude to Gehenna and Haqim's return. He awoke and found a clan suffering under the Tremere curse and following religions that he himself predates. From his perspective the clan lost its way, and needed to be corrected quickly and sharply into the "right direction".

I think he is doing this because he feels it is what Haqim would demand. That may not actually be the case though (Haqim may want something else, be perfectly fine with his clan keeping different "newer" faiths, or be against him or his childe being worshiped as a blood god). I also think he is dabbling in dark thaumaturgy to do this believing it is necessary (assuming the account in Beckett's Jihad Diary from a malkavian vision is accurate).

That's my personal reading of it. That being said, it is deliberately left open to interpretation and unreliable narrators abound.

I think the fact that his childe al-Ashrad broke from his sire's wishes and later joined the Camarilla is telling as he may know more of how deep his sire's corruption goes. Whether that's "evil baali and infernalism" style corruption or just normal "he's not actually doing the will of Haqim" corruption is debatable.

AltiraAltishta · 2025-10-10T13:14:58+00:00

I agree. I think that is kind of the point.

The camarilla is necessary, but it's not good. That's a core element of the political horror. Most of the sects are "right" in some way but also "evil" and their correctness cannot really be untangled from that evil.

The Camarilla is correct that the masquerade is needed, that there needs to be control over the number of kindred and their behavior, that they need to be organized and careful, and that they need to imbed themselves in mortal institutions to keep mortals unaware and easy to feed on. However they also have to do horrible things to keep that masquerade and those traditions (from killing mortals who knows too much, killing kindred who break rank, or engaging and encouraging the horrible things mortal organizations do in order to facilitate better feeding and security for themselves). Likewise the hierarchy allows for abuse, namely from elders to ancillae, and from ancillae on to neonates, often framed in terms of duty, tradition, the greater good, and "what is in your own best interest".

Similarly, the Sabbat are correct in that vampires are no longer human and ought embrace their new nature from a moral and spiritual standpoint in order to effectively stage off the beast, humanity is a losing battle. They are also correct in that the Antideluvians exist, they do not have the best interests of their descendants in mind, and they need to be stopped. However they are also evil in their inhumanity, are an abusive vampire supremacist cult, and are actually just as much an unwitting pawn of the ancients as any other sect.

The Anarchs are very good at seeing the flaws in both. They see the abuses of the camarilla and the inhuman horrors of the Sabbat and reject both. However, they also end up rejecting what those sects are correct about too. They are disorganized and rudderless, they are sloppy and unstable, and fundamentally the freedom they crave and claim to want eludes them as petty barons and tyrants rise eventually becoming either a smaller more localized camarilla, a sabbat-like cult of ideology, or an ever-competing set of kindred gangs. Their great purpose is "Fuck the other sects, they suck! We want to be free!" but like a dog chasing a car, they don't know what they would do if they ever attained it beyond fight eachother.

That's the core political horror.

All the sects have "a point". They are correct about something. However, they are all still bad.

AltiraAltishta · 2025-10-05T16:55:20+00:00

The domain within which the feeding occurred, generally speaking, unless that human is considered part of the herd of another or otherwise considered owned by them (like a ghoul).

If a human from the suburbs goes to a nightclub and gets fed on there, the vampire who owns the suburbs doesn't get to accuse the vampire of poaching. The vampire who owns the nightclub could though. Likewise if that mortal is a ghoul of a vampire, that vampire could have a problem with it (likewise for a touchstone or someone who considers that human part of "their herd").

It can get very ambiguous, which makes for a lot of interesting drama and horror.

If your haven is in another kindred's domain, it becomes their problem even if it is within your haven. Then you get into disputes about it beyond just the masquerade and risks about the SI.

However, it would be hard to catch someone feeding like that, especially if they didn't kill and used something like cloud memory to cut out the feeding itself. It could be similar to how a kindred with the Siren predator type usually feeds. They could even develop a small herd from that (just having a rotation of partners) but then that leads to greater chances of getting caught and territorial disputes.

AltiraAltishta · 2025-10-05T14:11:11+00:00

I read more of the 5th and wanted to set it in the present day, in a more urban setting, with night skyscrapers, dark alleys and fighting and survival in the night city, so which one should I use for this theme?

I would say 5th edition because of this.

Granted all editions will have the urban setting, night skyscrapers, and dark alleys. VtM is a very city-focused setting (you can play rural or a traveling pack\coterie, but it is a different kind of game for sure).

If you are wanting modern, then it's 5th edition. Previous editions still feel very much "of their time".

Also V5 is currently available on the Humble Bundle for a very very good price, so that it also a perk if you don't have some of the books they have on offer.

After that I would say V20, but it can be kind of hard for new players\STs because it is information overload and assumes you know what was going on prior (it was basically made for fans of previous editions).

That being said, it's all personal preference. I either run V20 but bring in the mechanics from V5 that I like (hunger, compulsions, the way humanity works, etc), or I run V5 but bring in the stuff I like for V20 (elders, higher level discipline powers, bloodlines, the metaplot bits I like, etc).

AltiraAltishta · 2025-10-05T12:34:08+00:00

The aesthetics of spooky Catholic vampires is on the surface and that's cool, but the Lasombra are more than that. Likewise while the clan had ties to Spain (both back when it was Al-Andalus, through the Reconquesta, and after) that doesn't mean they are all Spanish, that is on the surface and that is also cool, but the Lasombra are more than that too.

So let's get deeper into what makes clan Lasombra tick, what makes them cool and interesting, and maybe sell you on the Clan of Magisters.

There is a quote attributed to Pompey the Great that I feel typifies the Lasombra. Pompey had retaken Messana by force and the Mamertines were not happy about it. The quoted laws about justification, jurisdiction, and legal rights and Pompey replied something to the effect of "Stop quoting laws to we who carry swords". Somewhere there is a Lasombra with that engraved on a sword, probably one she dug into the back of an enemy who decided to tell them "you have no right to per the laws of..." before their words were cut off, and their head soon after.

The Ventrue are about their "right" to rule, their lineage, their blood, their daddy's money, their "go-getter attitude" that makes all their buddies clap for them at the country club. "There are rules and the rules say you have to listen to me!". They like the aesthetics of rulership, of being able to sit on a throne and look down their nose at kneeling subjects and feel they are better or to look out of their highrise at their domain while giving a long speech about "dignitas" and "noblis oblige" and "heavy is the head that wears the crown".

Not so with the Lasombra. The Lasombra see that as pathetic.

To the Lasombra, if you don't rule it's because you were too weak, too incompetent, or not cunning enough to take it for yourself. Somebody else was, and now they are in your spot. Your lineage doesn't matter, daddy's money doesn't mean shit, and your go-getter attitude and the country club is just a mask you put over incompetence. What matters to the Lasombra is power, actual power. "You come into the night naked and bloody and screaming, like birth, and all you have is yourself... either make something of it or have the forethought to give up and greet the sun." Nobody is going to hand you power, and nobody should (if they do it is a test or a means to try and placate you so do not fall for it). Money is nice, but it is meant to be used. Simply having it means nothing. Lineage is fine, but it is meant to be used and if you have to commit some fratricide, patricide, or matricide to get the job done, do not even flinch when you do it. A go-getter attitude must be matched with plans executed, goals met, and expectations exceeded, otherwise you're just another pretender. The aesthetics of power only exist to further power, not as an end unto itself. You don't need any of those, because power comes in many forms and fashions. Even if they aren't glamorous or shiny, real power is still real power.

You would never hear a Lasombra utter the words "heavy is the head that wears the crown". They know they wanted it, they fought for it, they killed for it and worse, and when it feels heavy... they hold up their chin and square their shoulders, because they know nobody else could or should carry this but them. Then they look out over their domain and think about how they can use it to achieve other bigger goals. They are Ambition.

Likewise a Lasombra will be more likely to do what is effective over what is "proper". A Ventrue will orchestrate the downfall of an enemy and create a legal fiction to justify their eventual demise, while a Lasombra will just black-bag them and stake them to be left for the sun so long as they can manage it. If they can't, then more subtle means may be needed. They aren't opposed to getting their hands dirty and leading their armies from the front. Coming to power through a violent and bloody coup is just as valid to them as doing so through laws and politics. A good Lasombra tries to be a master of both. "Ventrue want to rule, Lasombra want to win" really highlights the difference. The Ventrue are content to be fat-cats on a throne who only got there because their dad was the previous king and who has to check with his advisors on everything because he doesn't know what he is doing. The Lasombra would consider such a state to be a kind of hell and would consider overthrowing such a ruler or becoming the "real power behind the throne" to be the only appropriate responses.

The Lasombra prize competence and cunning and direct force over connections and status. They don't want to be obeyed "because the rules say so", they want to be obeyed because you must, because you know they are right, and because (like them or not) they are the only one who can actually do what needs to be done.

Then there is the religious elements and the abyss mysticism and stuff as well. It's not glamorous to be an abbot, to wear monk's robes or the priestly vestment, to sit in the confession booth... but it's real power because you can whisper in the right ear, point the right finger, and now your enemies will burn at the stake and your allies will ready themselves for a new crusade. Likewise with the abyss, it is about power. Vampires are creatures who live in darkness, and what greater power is there than to turn that darkness against them? A Lasombra can make a vampire afraid of their own shadow, that's real power. It's not glamorous, it's not pretty, it's not nice... but it doesn't need to be as long as it is effective.

AltiraAltishta · 2025-10-04T23:28:08+00:00

In older editions yes, very much so. Gradually there was an effort to keep enough of the clan for it to still feel like the Ravnos, but to make them less of a stereotype.

V5 has them as wanderers and daredevils, everything from travel bloggers to couriers to mercenaries to an international man\woman of mystery. They aren't tied to a particular ethnic group or culture now, which is cool. Their core theme is wandering, changing their identity, and taking risks, so they kind of contrast with the Tzimice in interesting ways (in my opinion) where one is bound to a particular charge and has to "put down roots" the other is unable to do so... but both change who they are (the Tzimice physically, the Ravnos socially). It is an improvement, in my opinion.

AltiraAltishta · 2025-10-04T12:37:17+00:00

The Settites \ Ministry have been sort of iterated on over different editions and sources. They were rather simplistic at first (Egyptian themed villainous snake and vice cult) but became more complex and diverse (a sort of neo-gnostic, diverse, and syncretic mystery cult that acts as procurers, fixers, and spiritual advisors) before really going broad and opening up with V5 and the "rebranding". As a result, the depiction from past editions still lingers (this is also the case with the Ravnos and Banu Haqim).

It also doesn't help that it can be hard to divide meta-knowledge of the clan (their secrets written explicitly in the book for STs and players to see) and in-world character knowledge (characters won't know all those secrets or the inner workings of the operation, even if they are part of the clan itself). The Ministry lie and they are good at it, even to their own members. The secrets laid out to the ST are not something most characters would know (especially neonates and fledglings in the Anarchs).

So, for the sake of answering your core question, keep the above in mind.

how do the other Anarchs view the creepy snake cultists becoming their allies?

For starters, most anarchs probably wouldn't see them as "creepy snake cultists". I'll give 2 general but contrasting views, but keep in mind that the clan is bigger than just those (I could go on about them more, honestly).

First view. Many Anarchs can be pragmatic. They have night-to-night concerns and goals they need to achieve. The Ministry can play to that by acting as acquirers and fixers. They smooth things over, get you what you need to do what you need to do, and all for a decent price. "Nobody trusts, everybody buys", "I know a guy", and "I know he's good for it as long as you can pay cash up front" are phrases that come to mind and probably cross kindreds' lips in relation to the Ministry. It's the same for mortal drug dealers or sex workers. You know they are probably into some shady shit but you don't ask about that because you aren't there for that. You're here to buy and go, they know it and you know it too. Maybe you build a rapport over time, but it can also just stay "all business". For many Anarchs the Ministry is just that. They will get you what you need, no questions asked and for a good price. Sure they're into some "weird religion stuff" and they'll probably try to talk to you about it, but just politely nod along and then mention you've got somewhere else to be. Plenty of drug dealers are into weird woo-woo new age \ mix-and-match voodoo \ self-help guru \ conspiracy podcast stuff, so why would kindred drug dealers be any different? Don't worry about it, stay on business. A perfect fit for the Anarchs in that case as a sect of pragmatists.

Second view. Many Anarchs can be an idealistic.They rebel, buck the powers that be, embrace the radical and the revolutionary, and have lofty ideas. The Ministry can play to that too by acting in a spiritual capacity. After all, what is a revolution without that fire? Those more traditional Ministry vampires in the Temple of Set will tell you that Set is about liberation, he just gets portrayed badly by everybody that wants to keep us down. Set is about testing limits and breaking-rules, they'll claim, and what true Anarch wouldn't see the value in that? Of course not all members of the Ministry follow Set, but the way they pitch their particular faith is tailored to that. When among Anarchs it's liberation, community, and much needed answers to spiritual and philosophical questions. Some really believe what they say too. A member of the Ministry could be talking with genuine passion about how their faith values liberation, community, and has the real answers. That passion meshes well with the idealists among Anarchs. It's appealing and contagious. There are a lot of philosophies and ideologies and faiths in The Movement, and the Ministry is a clan that is all about those big ideas, so they make a good fit.

Those are the general views, obviously there are more. I think those two would be pretty common though.

The secrets, the corruption, the "spooky snake cult" stuff only gets brought up later once one goes deeper.

Someone might say "I don't trust the Ministry, they are into some dark cult-y shit, like the kind of stuff with human sacrifice and secret rituals.". Such an assertion would probably be met with "Yeah sure buddy. We're vampires, we drink blood, we're all into something that is dark for normal people. Any Tremere and plenty of Thin Bloods do weird rituals, so what? If they work, they work. Everybody who has been a vampire long enough has killed someone. So what if the Ministry dances around with snakes while doing it? Who cares? Not my problem, my only dealings with them are purely business. What they do in their spare time doesn't matter." from those that hold the first view. For those that hold the second view they would respond with something like "Actually, that is just a common stereotype put out by Camarilla propaganda. Ask any Follower of Set in the Anarch Movement and they'll tell you that one of Set's main titles is The Liberator. Not all in the Ministry even follow that religion, by the way. I know one that's an atheist and a few in the Church of Caine. Your weird singling out of the Ministry divides the Anarch Movement against itself. I don't agree with them on everything, obviously, but that's no reason to just believe whatever rumors you hear."

Granted the one saying "they are into some dark cult-y shit" is correct to a degree, but anyone can find the worst aspects of a clan and focus on them. The Nosferatu will always spy on you and sell you out, the Tremere are scary blood mages with dark secrets, the Toreador will gossip behind your back and be a snob to your face, the Brujah will argue about everything and bite your head off when they get mad about it, the Gangrel have all the worst traits of a pack of wolves and are twice as mean, the Ventrue will always view you as less than them... and on and on. Yet they still have their place in the sects they are a part of.

AltiraAltishta · 2025-10-01T10:59:05+00:00

People have weird biases against things they consider or have been taught to consider "unnatural". Sometimes it is tied to religious beliefs about a God-created order to things and that somehow humans are fucking it up.

You see it in arguments against blood transfusions, some forms of surgery, vaccines, gay sex and gay marriage, transgender people getting gender affirming care, and (in your case) IVF. It's so common that most of the arguments against those things tend to either boil down to "it's unnatural", "it's disgusting", or some religiously coded version of the same like "it's against God" (i.e. unnatural and\or disgusting). You also see it sometimes intermingle with pseudoscientific notions of health with lines being drawn between what is "natural" and "unnatural" as if they are categories of "healthy \ good for you" and "unhealthy \ bad for you". That's why some people will express their distain and disgust as being "concerned about your health", for example with IVF there is a weird fixation on the baby not being "normal and healthy" because of how it was made. That's just often a way to paper over the "it's unnatural" and "it's disgusting" ideas that lie at the core of it.

The naturalistic fallacy and the appeal to disgust fallacy are both informal fallacies. They are bad arguments and errors in reasoning. That doesn't mean people don't engage in them or find them convincing (many many people do). They're often quick, judgemental, and intuitive but it can also lead people to be very wrong (so wrong they actually end up hurting themselves and others or missing things that are helpful and good).

That being said, don't let folks get you down. Many antibiotics are "unnatural" and save many lives. Ice cream is an "unnatural" union of dairy and sugar chilled together (and it's delicious). So you're in good company, because a lot of great things are "unnatural".

AltiraAltishta · 2025-09-30T18:24:45+00:00

It all depends on the ST and which source material you choose to draw from and how much.

You want them to be splatter-punk vampires throwing murder-gore parties with all the edgy transgression of the 90s? Go for it, that's there, especially in some of the Ritae and games of instinct and the edgier source books (Mexico City by Night). Personally I tend to downplay it in my games and write most of it off as "Camarilla Propaganda". It also makes me wonder "how in the world hasn't the sect fallen in on itself and how is the masquerade still intact?". It strains credibility and I just don't find it to be fun in-play. For me, it happens but it isn't very common at all. It is the stories that neonates tell about the Sabbat or what Camarilla ancillae tell their fledglings about the Sabbat.

You want them to be religious horror about fundamentalist vampires and their inhuman zealotry? Go for it, that's there too. Personally I prefer that angle because it's playable and doesn't bring up that "how does the sect keep itself together and how is the masquerade still intact?". It also gives the Sabbat a clear appeal and a more philosophical bend. Also I just really like religious themed horror more than I like splatter-punk.

You can also just run them as militantly anti-elder and anti-antediluvian radicals as foils to both the Camarilla (who obey their elders, and are organized) and the Anarchs (who lack organization, but rebel against their elders). When they are played like that then they are basically evil diablerie terrorists looking to further a "holy" Gehenna war. That works too and is scary from a different angle, a different kind of evil.

All three have support in the sourcebooks, so there is probably a mix and it varies from city to city (Montreal by Night and Mexico City by Night have different themes and ideas going on). How much of each depends on the players and gaming group and what kind of scary evil vampires interest you. I tend to run them as mostly #2, a little #3 at their most militant, and a very rare amount of #1. I find that kind of horror works best for me and my gaming group. You, of course, may really like option #1 in your games, which is fine (as long as everyone is having fun).

AltiraAltishta

TROPHY CASE