Hellraiser
Arcane
I'm sticking to B) but changing my phone vote to (P) Fellowes.
-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
Let's Play VtM: Night Empire
- Thread starter grotsnik
- Start date
laclongquan
Arcane
Yo Grotsnick~ Is it time for next update yet?
laclongquan
Arcane
:shit:
laclongquan
Arcane
People burnt themselves out arguing about cannibalism... 
Really hope grotsnik update soon
Really hope grotsnik update soon
Hellraiser
Arcane
I suggest we argue about something else then...
...like the vase.
...like the vase.
Gondolin
Arcane
I can offer some very interesting book excerpts about the City of London, which could help set the mood and maybe even give Grotsnik some ideas for a possible meeting with the bankers. However, I'd rather not derail the thread so let me know, people, if you want them posted as such or as a document uploaded on some file sharing website.
ironyuri
Guest
Post dat shit brah.
I suggest we argue about something else then...
...like the vase.
I have been thinking lately, maybe the vase was the source of Sommers' power and now that it is smashed, we are doomed to fail.
grotsnik
Arcane
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2010
- Messages
- 1,671
Please do! I'm currently reading about the Sabini family, who ruled the horse-racing underworld of London and Southern England, a la Brighton Rock, in the 1920s, and I'm definitely planning to
Gondolin
Arcane
Okay, bros. Meet the real Masquerade and its vampires. I apologize in advance to those who find this stuff dull. I think it's fucking fascinating.
The head of the Corporation of London is the Lord Mayor of London—not to be confused with the mayor of London, who runs the much larger greater London municipality that contains the City, geographically speaking, but has no jurisdiction over its nonmunicipal affairs. And this separation of powers matters.
When the Queen visits the City, she stops at the boundary at Temple Bar and waits for the Lord Mayor of the City, accompanied by assorted City Aldermen and Sherriffs. This tourist ceremony, in which the Queen touches the Lord Mayor’s sword, strikingly highlights the political discontinuity between the City and the rest of Britain. When heads of state visit Britain the Lord Mayor throws more lavish banquets than the Queen. Each year the Chancellor, Britain’s finance minister, makes a speech at the Guildhall, the seat of City government, and at the Lord Mayor’s Mansion House, in which they justify how they have been serving the interests of finance.
The City’s nine thousand–odd human residents have one vote each in municipal elections here. But businesses in the City vote too, as if they were human, with thirty-two thousand corporate votes. In effect, Goldman Sachs, the Bank of China, Moscow Narodny Bank, and KPMG can vote in a hugely important British election.
The strangeness goes deeper and deeper. In fact the Corporation is so ancient and mystifying that barely any outsiders understand it.
The Corporation’s website is a warren of tunneling links and unexpected, bizarre connections. A series of rituals confirm the integrity of the whole. There are 108 livery companies, including the Worshipful Companies of Broderers, and of Cord-wainers. The current Lord Mayor, Nick Anstee, is an honorary Liveryman of the Plaisterers’ Company. There are the Sheriffs, Aldermen, the Court of Common Council, and the “Rules for the Conduct of Life.” There is the Lord Mayor’s show, resplendent with arcane ritual, gilded coaches, and elderly men in long satin robes, that is watched by millions on the BBC every November.
The Corporation has existed since what tour guides and historians call time immemorial, a term taken to mean that its origins extend beyond the reach of memory, record, or tradition. There is no direct evidence, Corporation officials note, of it coming into being: They say, only half in jest, that it dates its “modern period” from the year 1067. This is the world’s oldest continuous municipal democracy, predating the British parliament and rooted in what the Corporation calls “the ancient rights and privileges enjoyed by citizens before the Norman Conquest in 1066.” This, notes the City of London expert Maurice Glasman, means that the City is effectively outside the normal legislative remit.
The City’s special privileges stem ultimately from the power of financial capital. Britain’s rulers have needed the City’s money and have given the City what it wants in exchange. Over the centuries the City has used this magic formula to carve out for itself privilege after privilege, exempting itself from laws it dislikes and turning itself into a state within a state: a true offshore island partly separate from Britain and protected from tides of history that have swept the British nation-state over the centuries. Monarchs, firebrands, and demagogues who tried to roll back the City’s special rights and privileges had occasional successes, but most came to a sticky end, and the City vigorously reasserted its rights. It was, one nineteenth-century reformer said, “like some prehistoric monster which had mysteriously survived into the modern world.”
In 1957 an official commission, which sparked a big shake-up of local government across Britain, opened with the memorable words: “Logic has its limits and the position of the City lies outside them.” The carve-out from Britain’s rules and laws has a truly ancient pedigree. When William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066, the rest of England disarmed and gave up its rights—but the City kept its freehold property, ancient liberties, and its own self-organizing militias: Even the King had to disarm in the City. When William commissioned the Domesday Book, a survey of the kingdom’s assets and revenues that determined taxation, the City was excluded.
In the momentous changes that followed—the Protestant Reformation five hundred years later when the English Church became subject to the Crown, the subsequent civil wars that broke the power of the monarchy, and the broadening of suffrage to include almost all adults—the City held on to its privileges and strengths. The Statute of William and Mary from 1690, “confirming the Privileges of the Corporation,” and following a challenge to the City’s authority by the late King Charles II, illustrates the scale of the City’s different status:
In other words, those claims that infringe the City’s ancient liberties are worthless. Earlier that century, the British crown had asked the Corporation to extend its ancient legal protections and privileges to new areas of London, outside the City, that were receiving tens of thousands of refugees from brutal land reforms known as the Enclosures. But the Corporation refused, instead shipping excess populations off to the Ulster Plantation and the Corporation of Londonderry in what is now Northern Ireland, helping build a large Protestant community there and contributing to bitter future conflict.
Today the City has an official named the Remembrancer, the world’s oldest institutional lobbyist, who is the only nonparliamentary person working in the parliamentary chamber. Currently a man named Paul Double, the Remembrancer is charged “with maintaining and enhancing the City’s status and ensuring that its established rights are safeguarded,” and he monitors, and lobbies on, anything in parliament that might touch on the City’s rights. At the time of writing in 2010 its most recent public memoranda included one arguing stridently against efforts to rein in hedge funds, and another largely seeking to absolve over-the-counter derivatives of helping cause the financial crisis, and arguing against restricting them. The City of London Corporation also has a pot of money at its disposal named City Cash, which it says is “a private fund built up over the last eight centuries,” earning income from “property, supplemented by investment earnings.” City Cash funds many things, including monuments and ceremonies, stakes in the property developments outside the City boundaries, free-market think tanks, and permanently staffed lobbying offices from Brussels to Bombay to Beijing. The City will not provide a detailed list of its assets and holdings: some, but not all, are available on the public record. It admits to owning some of the most valuable part of London’s West End bordering the world famous Regent and Oxford Streets. The City’s Cash is exempted from British Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, so we cannot find out what it owns. Jason Beattie, a reporter who sought to investigate this money pot, found it to be completely different from any other local authority fund he had ever encountered. “I FOI’d them to hell—and I got nowhere,” he remembers. Does it own property around Wall Street, as Glasman suspects? There is no obvious way to find out.
Some law made in the British parliament does apply to the Corporation, but some Acts of Parliament specifically exempt it, either fully or in part. The City is connected to the British nation-state, but it remains a constitutional elsewhere. In this the City resembles Jersey or the Cayman islands, the offshore jurisdictions that are its satellites—each of which, as I will show, has also been entirely captured by the interests of global finance.
For skittish global capital, the City’s constitutional foundation matters absolutely. Finance knows that any serious challenge to the City would face the mystique of time immemorial and the extravagant skills and powers of the many servants of finance. This globe-encompassing financial services center, whose influence reaches silently into people’s homes from Baltimore to Birmingham to Borneo, is founded upon an ancient constitutional platform that is unique and rather impregnable.
Political theorists have had great difficulty even seeing the Corporation of London, let alone appreciating its significance. With its politics of personal proximity, its bonds of shared identity and principle, and its elaborate ceremonials, the City manages to be at once vastly powerful and barely visible. It fits into no modern analytical framework. Mainstream modern publications about the City gloss over its free-floating status. Globalization has led to whole fields of research into the actions and interactions of companies in markets, but they usually only discuss political institutions on an abstract level. Students of the philosopher John Rawls have focused on the social compact—the relationship between rulers and ruled—but have paid relatively little reference to the role of institutions or history. Even Marxists, primed not to worry much about how financial capital organizes itself, have considered the City in the context of a clash between manufacturing capital and financial capital, misunderstanding its true role. The City is, as Glasman puts it, “an ancient and very small intimate relational institution, which doesn’t fit into anybody’s preconceived paradigm of modernity. Here is a medieval commune representing capital. It just does not compute."
tl;dr - The City is ancient, powerful, mysterious and unaccountable. It IS the Masquerade.
The head of the Corporation of London is the Lord Mayor of London—not to be confused with the mayor of London, who runs the much larger greater London municipality that contains the City, geographically speaking, but has no jurisdiction over its nonmunicipal affairs. And this separation of powers matters.
When the Queen visits the City, she stops at the boundary at Temple Bar and waits for the Lord Mayor of the City, accompanied by assorted City Aldermen and Sherriffs. This tourist ceremony, in which the Queen touches the Lord Mayor’s sword, strikingly highlights the political discontinuity between the City and the rest of Britain. When heads of state visit Britain the Lord Mayor throws more lavish banquets than the Queen. Each year the Chancellor, Britain’s finance minister, makes a speech at the Guildhall, the seat of City government, and at the Lord Mayor’s Mansion House, in which they justify how they have been serving the interests of finance.
The City’s nine thousand–odd human residents have one vote each in municipal elections here. But businesses in the City vote too, as if they were human, with thirty-two thousand corporate votes. In effect, Goldman Sachs, the Bank of China, Moscow Narodny Bank, and KPMG can vote in a hugely important British election.
The strangeness goes deeper and deeper. In fact the Corporation is so ancient and mystifying that barely any outsiders understand it.
The Corporation’s website is a warren of tunneling links and unexpected, bizarre connections. A series of rituals confirm the integrity of the whole. There are 108 livery companies, including the Worshipful Companies of Broderers, and of Cord-wainers. The current Lord Mayor, Nick Anstee, is an honorary Liveryman of the Plaisterers’ Company. There are the Sheriffs, Aldermen, the Court of Common Council, and the “Rules for the Conduct of Life.” There is the Lord Mayor’s show, resplendent with arcane ritual, gilded coaches, and elderly men in long satin robes, that is watched by millions on the BBC every November.
The Corporation has existed since what tour guides and historians call time immemorial, a term taken to mean that its origins extend beyond the reach of memory, record, or tradition. There is no direct evidence, Corporation officials note, of it coming into being: They say, only half in jest, that it dates its “modern period” from the year 1067. This is the world’s oldest continuous municipal democracy, predating the British parliament and rooted in what the Corporation calls “the ancient rights and privileges enjoyed by citizens before the Norman Conquest in 1066.” This, notes the City of London expert Maurice Glasman, means that the City is effectively outside the normal legislative remit.
The City’s special privileges stem ultimately from the power of financial capital. Britain’s rulers have needed the City’s money and have given the City what it wants in exchange. Over the centuries the City has used this magic formula to carve out for itself privilege after privilege, exempting itself from laws it dislikes and turning itself into a state within a state: a true offshore island partly separate from Britain and protected from tides of history that have swept the British nation-state over the centuries. Monarchs, firebrands, and demagogues who tried to roll back the City’s special rights and privileges had occasional successes, but most came to a sticky end, and the City vigorously reasserted its rights. It was, one nineteenth-century reformer said, “like some prehistoric monster which had mysteriously survived into the modern world.”
In 1957 an official commission, which sparked a big shake-up of local government across Britain, opened with the memorable words: “Logic has its limits and the position of the City lies outside them.” The carve-out from Britain’s rules and laws has a truly ancient pedigree. When William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066, the rest of England disarmed and gave up its rights—but the City kept its freehold property, ancient liberties, and its own self-organizing militias: Even the King had to disarm in the City. When William commissioned the Domesday Book, a survey of the kingdom’s assets and revenues that determined taxation, the City was excluded.
In the momentous changes that followed—the Protestant Reformation five hundred years later when the English Church became subject to the Crown, the subsequent civil wars that broke the power of the monarchy, and the broadening of suffrage to include almost all adults—the City held on to its privileges and strengths. The Statute of William and Mary from 1690, “confirming the Privileges of the Corporation,” and following a challenge to the City’s authority by the late King Charles II, illustrates the scale of the City’s different status:
In other words, those claims that infringe the City’s ancient liberties are worthless. Earlier that century, the British crown had asked the Corporation to extend its ancient legal protections and privileges to new areas of London, outside the City, that were receiving tens of thousands of refugees from brutal land reforms known as the Enclosures. But the Corporation refused, instead shipping excess populations off to the Ulster Plantation and the Corporation of Londonderry in what is now Northern Ireland, helping build a large Protestant community there and contributing to bitter future conflict.
Today the City has an official named the Remembrancer, the world’s oldest institutional lobbyist, who is the only nonparliamentary person working in the parliamentary chamber. Currently a man named Paul Double, the Remembrancer is charged “with maintaining and enhancing the City’s status and ensuring that its established rights are safeguarded,” and he monitors, and lobbies on, anything in parliament that might touch on the City’s rights. At the time of writing in 2010 its most recent public memoranda included one arguing stridently against efforts to rein in hedge funds, and another largely seeking to absolve over-the-counter derivatives of helping cause the financial crisis, and arguing against restricting them. The City of London Corporation also has a pot of money at its disposal named City Cash, which it says is “a private fund built up over the last eight centuries,” earning income from “property, supplemented by investment earnings.” City Cash funds many things, including monuments and ceremonies, stakes in the property developments outside the City boundaries, free-market think tanks, and permanently staffed lobbying offices from Brussels to Bombay to Beijing. The City will not provide a detailed list of its assets and holdings: some, but not all, are available on the public record. It admits to owning some of the most valuable part of London’s West End bordering the world famous Regent and Oxford Streets. The City’s Cash is exempted from British Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, so we cannot find out what it owns. Jason Beattie, a reporter who sought to investigate this money pot, found it to be completely different from any other local authority fund he had ever encountered. “I FOI’d them to hell—and I got nowhere,” he remembers. Does it own property around Wall Street, as Glasman suspects? There is no obvious way to find out.
Some law made in the British parliament does apply to the Corporation, but some Acts of Parliament specifically exempt it, either fully or in part. The City is connected to the British nation-state, but it remains a constitutional elsewhere. In this the City resembles Jersey or the Cayman islands, the offshore jurisdictions that are its satellites—each of which, as I will show, has also been entirely captured by the interests of global finance.
For skittish global capital, the City’s constitutional foundation matters absolutely. Finance knows that any serious challenge to the City would face the mystique of time immemorial and the extravagant skills and powers of the many servants of finance. This globe-encompassing financial services center, whose influence reaches silently into people’s homes from Baltimore to Birmingham to Borneo, is founded upon an ancient constitutional platform that is unique and rather impregnable.
Political theorists have had great difficulty even seeing the Corporation of London, let alone appreciating its significance. With its politics of personal proximity, its bonds of shared identity and principle, and its elaborate ceremonials, the City manages to be at once vastly powerful and barely visible. It fits into no modern analytical framework. Mainstream modern publications about the City gloss over its free-floating status. Globalization has led to whole fields of research into the actions and interactions of companies in markets, but they usually only discuss political institutions on an abstract level. Students of the philosopher John Rawls have focused on the social compact—the relationship between rulers and ruled—but have paid relatively little reference to the role of institutions or history. Even Marxists, primed not to worry much about how financial capital organizes itself, have considered the City in the context of a clash between manufacturing capital and financial capital, misunderstanding its true role. The City is, as Glasman puts it, “an ancient and very small intimate relational institution, which doesn’t fit into anybody’s preconceived paradigm of modernity. Here is a medieval commune representing capital. It just does not compute."
tl;dr - The City is ancient, powerful, mysterious and unaccountable. It IS the Masquerade.
ironyuri
Guest
Gondolin, bro, what's the source for that text?
Edit-Call it my academic background, but I really like bibliographic referencing.
Edit-Call it my academic background, but I really like bibliographic referencing.
Gondolin
Arcane
Nicholas Shaxson - Treasure Islands: Uncovering the Damage of Offshore Banking and Tax Havens - Chapter 4
[ur]http://www.amazon.com/Treasure-Isla...5017/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1332696528&sr=8-1[/url]
[ur]http://www.amazon.com/Treasure-Isla...5017/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1332696528&sr=8-1[/url]
ironyuri
Guest
Thanks, bro. I was wondering whether it was fiction, an actual White Wolf London by Night sourcebook text, or 'current affairs'.
Brilliant.
grotsnik
Arcane
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2010
- Messages
- 1,671
The weird and hugely influential nature of the City is one of the big reasons why the 'soon those terrible black and Muslim hordes will rule London/London is not truly British any more, harrumph, what 's happened to the Empire?' Daily Mail-reading crowd are completely misinformed about what London actually is and its modern relevance, I think. As a city, it's practically ungovernable (there's a reason they only bothered trying to have an actual Mayor back in 2000) and uncontrollable, with this very old, traditional and internationally powerful financial/cultural core that simply doesn't change, surrounded by endless diverse districts with identities that are constantly shifting, from the ultra-cool and fashionable to absolute run-down shitholes; gentrification happens damned fast in London, (fifty years ago Notting Hill was one of the worst places to live in the city, and now you need to be a millionaire to find a flat there that isn't a shoebox) and it so often seems to be at random - a lot of ambitious city planners came away defeated and puzzled. It really is a kind of double city, with a vast gulf between the richest and poorest (I think at least one academic's claimed it's the biggest in the developed world). Endlessly fascinating.
But yeah, as we are as a nation now hugely dependent on the City, we are pretty gentle about taxing the super-rich. 's why it's so easy for foreign investors resident in the country to get non-domicile tax benefits, innit.
laclongquan
Arcane
It's not the joos, it's the vamps. All those bloodsuckers in the centre...
Anyway, chap. Isnt it time?
Anyway, chap. Isnt it time?
ironyuri
Guest
Where's that from, if you don't mind me asking?
The weird and hugely influential nature of the City is one of the big reasons why the 'soon those terrible black and Muslim hordes will rule London/London is not truly British any more, harrumph, what 's happened to the Empire?' Daily Mail-reading crowd are completely misinformed about what London actually is and its modern relevance, I think. As a city, it's practically ungovernable (there's a reason they only bothered trying to have an actual Mayor back in 2000) and uncontrollable, with this very old, traditional and internationally powerful financial/cultural core that simply doesn't change, surrounded by endless diverse districts with identities that are constantly shifting, from the ultra-cool and fashionable to absolute run-down shitholes; gentrification happens damned fast in London, (fifty years ago Notting Hill was one of the worst places to live in the city, and now you need to be a millionaire to find a flat there that isn't a shoebox) and it so often seems to be at random - a lot of ambitious city planners came away defeated and puzzled. It really is a kind of double city, with a vast gulf between the richest and poorest (I think at least one academic's claimed it's the biggest in the developed world). Endlessly fascinating.
But yeah, as we are as a nation now hugely dependent on the City, we are pretty gentle about taxing the super-rich. 's why it's so easy for foreign investors resident in the country to get non-domicile tax benefits, innit.
It's rather strange, because the massive centralisation of power/finance/culture through a single city was more of a French invention. Paris, especially during the Napoleonic (and post-Napoleonic) period became the central organ of all government, and most, if not all diverse French cultures and dialects were stamped out in favour of standardisation (Occitan, Breton, Ch'ti, etc.) It doesn't seem quite so palpable that London is the centre of England, considering its industrial power always lay in the north, but ever since the Thatcher years, I think, increasingly, everything has been sucked into the financial gravity well that London generates and now orbits it like a gas (cash?) giant.
It is rather interesting.
Edit-
It must be said however, that the Daily Mail isn't terribly far off in some ways. Consider that Thatcher's government floated the idea of planned urban degradation/degeneration after the Toxteth riots. In both Britain, and France, the centralisation of culture and government in one very diverse and swelling urban centre has been to the detriment of peripheral towns and cities, which have lost their socio-economic anchors and as such have witnessed mass influx of usually poorly educated and impoverished immigrant communities, in progressive stages based on global population shifts. That has as much to do with the inability of the government and native population to shift, or accomodate a new culture as it does a new culture being unwilling to assimilate in both cases.
Esquilax
Arcane
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2010
- Messages
- 4,833
Before the next update, I would like to talk about our impending political campaign. Let's set aside plots for the time being and really think about how we're going to approach the coming nights. I see three approaches that are open to us at this point:
A) We commit to Vogler; this is obviously the most difficult and most rewarding option if we succeed. During the time Vogler's man is working towards gaining an audience with the Venetian envoy, we will need to work to gain support for Vogler among our fellow Barons. If we can whip up some support in an unlikely candidate like Vogler, then it would give our as of yet unknown contact some bargaining power when they meet the envoy. A Prince candidate needs 3 things to be a lock: (1) support from the Camarilla Inner Circle, (2) Popularity among important Kindred, and (3) a relatively clean past* that won't fuck up said candidate's chances.
To make sure Vogler's eventual meeting with the envoy is as successful as possible (I assume it won't happen right away), Sommers will have to start working to gain support among his fellow Barons. While Vogler's ally is working towards getting a meeting with the Camarilla envoy, we will be working to curry favour among our "friends". But, who among our tight-assed colleagues would be willing to support some mangy Gangrel for a spot at the top? Especially when you take into account that we are rather unpopular ourselves. I say we start here:
This guy is perfect - not very bright, big ego and he feels slighted by his fellow Brujah because of his Camarilla affiliation. However, if he were to aid in getting a Gangrel candidate as Prince of London, suddenly everything he said about "changing the Camarilla from within" would be vindicated. If a Gangrel can become Prince, then fuck, anything is possible. The Anarchs who thought Biggs was just another Cammie stooge would suddenly begin to respect him. Also, if the man has been ineffective in his attempts to court Kine labour union leaders, I am certain that Sommers' political connections could no doubt aid him in that goal - politics, labour and finance are intertwined. That could sweeten the deal for him.
Lastly, Briggs is located near Giovanni territory. Tarquin, one of the most likely candidates in the race, has possible connections to the Giovanni. If we can find out whether those rumors are true (or at least, make people think that it's true) it would make the Inner Circle think twice about appointing him and possibly fuck up his chances.
However, Briggs isn't enough. The
establishment of London won't take us seriously - a mangy Gangrel, a Brujah and some pissant wet-behind-the-ears Ventrue doesn't sound respectable. It sounds silly, like we're putting on airs. It's sort of like putting a suit on a chimp. We need support from a fellow Ventrue who, even if their name doesn't carry a ton of weight, will at least allow those stuffy cunts around us to see Vogler as a legitimate candidate. Perhaps someone like:
Eda Sly resents and despises Turcov for taking a position that she believes to rightfully be hers. I believe that we can work this to our advantage: would it be possible for Vogler to make her Primogen instead if he were Prince? She would probably relish the thought of getting back at him. If she can't be Prince (and hopefully we can make her realizes her chances are even slimmer than Vogler's) then perhaps we can entice her with an offer of Primogen... and a chance to embarrass Turcov.
If we get that level of support, we've actually got something to work with. We have a candidate with a legitimate shot at winning.
B) We milk Vogler for his contact and then convince them to support a more likely candidate. The most popular candidate for Prince is Julian Fox - he'd be a lock, but the problem is, nobody in Venice really holds him in high esteem. I'm sure that if we manage to meet Vogler's contact, gain their trust and convince them that they're betting on the wrong horse, he could put in a good word for Fox to secure his chances. I have no doubt that Mr. Fox would appreciate the favour by letting us hold on to Whitehall permanently. It isn't glamorous, but at least we'd keep what we've earned thus far. This is a good plan B in case things go sour with Vogler and we need to abort. Making a great first impression on a very popular new Prince is great.
C) Okay, let's say we decide that we're no good at picking winners, but we want to make a few friends regardless who can provide us with good contacts and give us solid support for our claim on Whitehall. I say we talk to the Tremere and endorse their candidate - while I think Brother David will have more trouble gaining support than Vogler will and possibly cause instability in the city due tohippie Anarch butthurt, they need friends as badly as we do. If we help them now while it's a politically risky move, it's possible that they'll remember it and help Tony out when the time comes. If we show them that we're willing to build bridges even after Eames threw a ball of acid straight at us, I am sure that they'll be grateful.
* From what Costello's description and the man himself have told us, Vogler's past might prove to be a liability. If our rivals use his wild youth (clearly he's frenzied a few times) as a means to call into question his judgement and fitness to rule, it could be problematic. In that case, we've got to spin Vogler's youthful indiscretions into a positive. We need to find out the context behind Vogler's "wasted youth" - that is, what can be used against him. If we can create a convincint narrative out of it (i.e. "he only frenzied during a Sabbat attack and killed an entire pack single-handed!") we might be able to make Vogler look strong, as opposed to irrational. Politicians do this shit all the time, so we have to also get good at creating convincing narratives too.
A) We commit to Vogler; this is obviously the most difficult and most rewarding option if we succeed. During the time Vogler's man is working towards gaining an audience with the Venetian envoy, we will need to work to gain support for Vogler among our fellow Barons. If we can whip up some support in an unlikely candidate like Vogler, then it would give our as of yet unknown contact some bargaining power when they meet the envoy. A Prince candidate needs 3 things to be a lock: (1) support from the Camarilla Inner Circle, (2) Popularity among important Kindred, and (3) a relatively clean past* that won't fuck up said candidate's chances.
To make sure Vogler's eventual meeting with the envoy is as successful as possible (I assume it won't happen right away), Sommers will have to start working to gain support among his fellow Barons. While Vogler's ally is working towards getting a meeting with the Camarilla envoy, we will be working to curry favour among our "friends". But, who among our tight-assed colleagues would be willing to support some mangy Gangrel for a spot at the top? Especially when you take into account that we are rather unpopular ourselves. I say we start here:
This guy is perfect - not very bright, big ego and he feels slighted by his fellow Brujah because of his Camarilla affiliation. However, if he were to aid in getting a Gangrel candidate as Prince of London, suddenly everything he said about "changing the Camarilla from within" would be vindicated. If a Gangrel can become Prince, then fuck, anything is possible. The Anarchs who thought Biggs was just another Cammie stooge would suddenly begin to respect him. Also, if the man has been ineffective in his attempts to court Kine labour union leaders, I am certain that Sommers' political connections could no doubt aid him in that goal - politics, labour and finance are intertwined. That could sweeten the deal for him.
Lastly, Briggs is located near Giovanni territory. Tarquin, one of the most likely candidates in the race, has possible connections to the Giovanni. If we can find out whether those rumors are true (or at least, make people think that it's true) it would make the Inner Circle think twice about appointing him and possibly fuck up his chances.
However, Briggs isn't enough. The
establishment of London won't take us seriously - a mangy Gangrel, a Brujah and some pissant wet-behind-the-ears Ventrue doesn't sound respectable. It sounds silly, like we're putting on airs. It's sort of like putting a suit on a chimp. We need support from a fellow Ventrue who, even if their name doesn't carry a ton of weight, will at least allow those stuffy cunts around us to see Vogler as a legitimate candidate. Perhaps someone like:Eda Sly resents and despises Turcov for taking a position that she believes to rightfully be hers. I believe that we can work this to our advantage: would it be possible for Vogler to make her Primogen instead if he were Prince? She would probably relish the thought of getting back at him. If she can't be Prince (and hopefully we can make her realizes her chances are even slimmer than Vogler's) then perhaps we can entice her with an offer of Primogen... and a chance to embarrass Turcov.
If we get that level of support, we've actually got something to work with. We have a candidate with a legitimate shot at winning.
B) We milk Vogler for his contact and then convince them to support a more likely candidate. The most popular candidate for Prince is Julian Fox - he'd be a lock, but the problem is, nobody in Venice really holds him in high esteem. I'm sure that if we manage to meet Vogler's contact, gain their trust and convince them that they're betting on the wrong horse, he could put in a good word for Fox to secure his chances. I have no doubt that Mr. Fox would appreciate the favour by letting us hold on to Whitehall permanently. It isn't glamorous, but at least we'd keep what we've earned thus far. This is a good plan B in case things go sour with Vogler and we need to abort. Making a great first impression on a very popular new Prince is great.
C) Okay, let's say we decide that we're no good at picking winners, but we want to make a few friends regardless who can provide us with good contacts and give us solid support for our claim on Whitehall. I say we talk to the Tremere and endorse their candidate - while I think Brother David will have more trouble gaining support than Vogler will and possibly cause instability in the city due to
* From what Costello's description and the man himself have told us, Vogler's past might prove to be a liability. If our rivals use his wild youth (clearly he's frenzied a few times) as a means to call into question his judgement and fitness to rule, it could be problematic. In that case, we've got to spin Vogler's youthful indiscretions into a positive. We need to find out the context behind Vogler's "wasted youth" - that is, what can be used against him. If we can create a convincint narrative out of it (i.e. "he only frenzied during a Sabbat attack and killed an entire pack single-handed!") we might be able to make Vogler look strong, as opposed to irrational. Politicians do this shit all the time, so we have to also get good at creating convincing narratives too.
laclongquan
Arcane
Chaps, chaps! Dont forget our Heath has a sizeable population of Gangrels. Our first move toward gathering popular support for Vogler should be aiming toward the locals. We shall see, we must see what they are thinking about him and his prospect.
Esquilax make good points about Biggs. I also think he should be our second stop.
The third stop should be a tremere persona. IF the silent backer of Vogler is a Tremere, a direct face to face meeting to assure him our support of Tremere safety in London, should be a good move. If that backer is not Tremere, Brother David is a very reluctant second choice. I simply have no confidence Anthony can deal with him safely.
With the 3rd stop out of the way, I vote for a meeting electronic or otherwise, with Nosferatus faction. They have gone underground for fear of second attacks, in need of financial support as well as physical security. I think a meeting of two sides will be profitable. IF it's not feasible, I vote for Oscar as the 4th stop, but the man is outcast, not very flagrant politically.
Esquilax make good points about Biggs. I also think he should be our second stop.
The third stop should be a tremere persona. IF the silent backer of Vogler is a Tremere, a direct face to face meeting to assure him our support of Tremere safety in London, should be a good move. If that backer is not Tremere, Brother David is a very reluctant second choice. I simply have no confidence Anthony can deal with him safely.
With the 3rd stop out of the way, I vote for a meeting electronic or otherwise, with Nosferatus faction. They have gone underground for fear of second attacks, in need of financial support as well as physical security. I think a meeting of two sides will be profitable. IF it's not feasible, I vote for Oscar as the 4th stop, but the man is outcast, not very flagrant politically.
Computer Gamer Refugee
Learned
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2012
- Messages
- 382
Fantastic write up Esquilax. The best part is that, if we lay the groundwork right, there is a good chance we can work A), but flow it (hopefully) seamlessly into B) if things start to look less likely.
Esquilax
Arcane
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2010
- Messages
- 4,833
Uh... I dunno. Dude, I am just making taking stabs in the dark because finding creative solutions is one of the funnest parts of this LP. Personally, I would vote for whatever option involves either diablerie and/or an overly elaborate scheme that will backfire spectacularly and lead to a horrific death.
Remember that the choice said: D)Tell him yes, and encourage him to use his Venetian contact to try and gain a private audience with the envoy. I assume that Mr./Ms. Venetian Envoy is a busy individual who will no doubt have lots of people wanting an audience, so it will take some time to actually get in the same room as them, hence the word "try". However, I think that it's a good idea to take steps toward meeting them now, because later on when the election campaign starts heating up, we may not get the chance to. More prominent candidates with more clout might be able to, but I doubt we will.
That being said, if we want an audience with the envoy, we gotta work fast and make moves on Kindred ASAP. We need to give Vogler's friend as much negotiating power as possible going into the meeting, and we do that by making him as attractive a candidate as possible. For that, we need to get important Kindred to support him. The other reason I want to encourage him to use his Venetian contact is so that it might eventually result in a face-to-face meeting with the guy. If, by then we feel that Vogler doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell, we can hopefully (and I stress, hopefully) convince them to speak up in favour of Julian Fox, a far stronger candidate.
Also, I don't entirely trust the motives of Vogler's contact. Why is a powerful individual like that trying to get a relative nobody like Vogler a seat on the throne? What stake do they have in all of this? I want to know this.
Computer Gamer Refugee Thanks! Still, getting Eda on our side might prove to be tricky - she seems like she really wants the crown and is in denial about her chances, so coming to her to ask support for a rival candidate might leave her incredibly pissed off if we aren't careful. If we can exploit her hatred of Turcov by offering a position as Primogen and a chance to humiliate him, she might agree.
We also need to ourselves in the shoes of the Vogler's contact. It's like this: you're coming into a meeting with some oldfag vampire, probably a Ventrue, who bursts into laughter at the notion of a Gangrel being Prince. Well, what do you say to make it sound like a good idea instead of a ridiculous one? Probably something like this:
- Eda Sly (remember her, she's Lady Anne's childe. Weren't things so much better when she was around?) and an ambitious newcomer named Anthony Sommers will be the ones really in charge of the city. The Brujah Primogen also supports him as well.
- We'll be keeping a firm grip on Vogler as almost all positions other than Prince will be held by either Ventrue or Toreador. Meanwhile, long-term stability is assured because Vogler can integrate his Clanmates back into the Camarilla.
- The Sabbat will find it very difficult to make any incursions with our forces bolstered by the Heath's Gangrel, and the Anarchs' constant whining about the proletariat will come off as silly now that an individual like Vogler occupies the most powerful position of the city. Camarilla dominance is assured.
Forget about the Gangrel or the Nosferatu. They don't even fucking matter. We can worry about getting support from the local Gangrel once we've got Vogler's ass on the throne, but not a minute sooner.
Why are you backing longshots? With Vogler I don't mind because there's a chance that if shit goes sour, we can piggyback onto the Julian Fox train. But we've got no out with the Tremere - making friends with them is probably a good idea, but considering the climate in London right now, backing a Tremere for Prince is more of a longshot than a Gangrel. Jesus, it's like campaigning for a Muslim congressman in 2002.
EsquiBRO, you're mixing up Eda Sly with Jacqueline Dee. Dee's a childe of Lady Anne's, not Sly!
Other than that, brilliant analysys
One thing I *would* add, however, is approaching Shaul Artzi in a friendly manner. NOT with a promise of supporting Brother David, however. Rather to try and convince the Tremere that Prince Vogler would also be fair to them. He's an outsider and Eames never slighted him, so he won't have any reasons to judge them unfairly.
laclongquan
Arcane
Eh, Everything about Vogler is long shot. Therefore we have to act for longshots.
The key point of Vogler's platform is that his ascendancy is a sign of Gangrel thinking seriously about going back into the fold. That is the core power.
- Not his backer because quite a lot of others have Venetian backers of their own.
- Not his forthright character because we have forthright characters of our own inside city and out.
The entire city is in a vortex of chaos, fear and uncertainty.
- The apparent power behind Kirkberc's throne, Eames, turn out to be a demon-worshiper(?) and therefore taint the Tremere faction. Who will be trusted enough to hold power? Who? Or are they going back to civil war, what with the two week war is still very fresh on their minds.
- They lost their eyes and ears, the Nos network. Despised though they are, Nos provide a comfortable feeling to Kindred that while they poke their noses everywhere, at least they keep an eye on Sabbat. Without them, who will?
- The Sabbat is returning in the south. And their barons havent done much to stem the tide. There's no pillar of strength to shield them.
That is why Vogler can promise them: a fresh winds to the City's politic; a fresh power in the form of Gangrel return; and reopen the Nos eyes and ears.
Going for Gangrel and Nos is longshot, but consistent with his politic.
Meet with Brother Davis to assure him of our support for Tremere safety is to keep them happy and Venice happy. it's NOT about support Brother Davis.
The key point of Vogler's platform is that his ascendancy is a sign of Gangrel thinking seriously about going back into the fold. That is the core power.
- Not his backer because quite a lot of others have Venetian backers of their own.
- Not his forthright character because we have forthright characters of our own inside city and out.
The entire city is in a vortex of chaos, fear and uncertainty.
- The apparent power behind Kirkberc's throne, Eames, turn out to be a demon-worshiper(?) and therefore taint the Tremere faction. Who will be trusted enough to hold power? Who? Or are they going back to civil war, what with the two week war is still very fresh on their minds.
- They lost their eyes and ears, the Nos network. Despised though they are, Nos provide a comfortable feeling to Kindred that while they poke their noses everywhere, at least they keep an eye on Sabbat. Without them, who will?
- The Sabbat is returning in the south. And their barons havent done much to stem the tide. There's no pillar of strength to shield them.
That is why Vogler can promise them: a fresh winds to the City's politic; a fresh power in the form of Gangrel return; and reopen the Nos eyes and ears.
Going for Gangrel and Nos is longshot, but consistent with his politic.
Meet with Brother Davis to assure him of our support for Tremere safety is to keep them happy and Venice happy. it's NOT about support Brother Davis.
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.