734
Based Vampire the Masquerade (media.piefed.social)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Iunnrais@piefed.social 50 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

On the one hand, good on them for trying a “nazi punks fuck off” type move.

On the other hand, a blood sucking aristocracy that feeds off the “lesser people” beneath them as the protagonists… that’s nearly the definition of fascism?

[-] Jax@sh.itjust.works 7 points 17 hours ago

that’s nearly the definition of fascism?

Yes, which is why they need to put this kind of disclaimer in their handbook — lest they end up with chuds like the Warhammer franchise. Those chuds being the ones that don't understand that the Imperium is really bad.

[-] Sir_Gkar@lemmy.world 93 points 1 day ago

From what I recall (and this may vary between editions), the game tends to assume that most people are playing younger vampires who aren't anything like an aristocracy. By default, you play as the bottom rung of vampire society, the youngest generation in a system where the older generations will never grow old and die. The aristocrats aren't the protagonists, they are the ever present boot stomping you down.

More importantly, the core concept of the game is supposed to be about the "personal horror" of being a monster. You were a (presumably) ordinary person who has been violated, killed, and brought back as an abomination. Your existence is defined by the struggle against the beast within. You are desperately clinging to your humanity, and every time you slip up or compromise you risk losing a piece of yourself that you can't get back. You suffer mechanical penalties for becoming more evil, and if you ever lose your humanity completely you lose your character.

In short, the game isn't supposed to be the kind of thing that would appeal to a fascist. If anything, it has more in common with the experience of waking up to find yourself surrounded by fascists and trying to survive without becoming one of them.

[-] Barbarian@sh.itjust.works 38 points 1 day ago

Yup, this is pretty much it. I played a campaign of it. Essentially, you're so far down the hierarchy you're basically almost human, with older vampires being a far far greater threat than humans, struggling to understand and survive vampire society before it destroys you. As you said, there's also a fair chunk of trying to hold on to what humanity you still have left.

[-] Iunnrais@piefed.social 10 points 1 day ago

That is entirely fair. I only know V:tM from people I knew who played it… but they were, as individuals, definitely more on the fascist side, leaning more into the glamour of being a monster rather than the horror of being a monster.

I hope more groups and players lean into the horror of it more than the glamour. Maybe this note is trying to encourage that.

[-] PugJesus@piefed.social 50 points 1 day ago

I mean, that's more the definition of... well, aristocracy.

Fascism is largely a creation of the modern age and mass politics.

[-] SmackemWittadic@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

Aristocracy has shown a tendancy to lead to fascism, as can be seen in what is currently happening in the US

[-] PugJesus@piefed.social 4 points 20 hours ago

Yes and no. Aristocracy can exist independent from fascism, and should be considered entirely separately. However, if they can't maintain power with a purely conservative/reactionary coalition, aristocrats will almost always side with fascists over liberals, much less socialists. As such, in the modern day, aristocracies are aligned with fascists, despite fascism erasing aristocracy as it 'succeeds' and aristocrats being generally aware that fascists do not have their aristocratic interests in mind.

[-] SmackemWittadic@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

Oh absolutely, it's just that the modern day aristocrats of capitalism are so short sighted they can't see past their own nose.

They don't know that their own wealth is meaningless since rule of law is not theirs, and no one will care if they get epstiened like many Russian oligarchs.

"First they came" and all that

[-] GreenBeard@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago

Fascism is what you get when Aristocracy gets a business degree. The difference between a feudal lord and a CEO is non-farm income.

[-] PugJesus@piefed.social 3 points 20 hours ago

Fascism is what you get when Aristocracy gets a business degree. The difference between a feudal lord and a CEO is non-farm income.

Far, far from it. Despite the casual use (including by me!) of aristocracy for any entrenched elite, there is a non-negligible difference between actual aristocrats and plutocrats. Long story short, aristocrats are dependent on social capital and extraordinary legal privileges; plutocrats are dependent on financial capital. The tension between these competing sources of elite power has fueled many pre-modern conflicts. The two can blend, and there's rarely a 'pure' example of either, but they're aren't quite equivalent either. A majority-owner of a modern farming conglomerate does not base his power on the same foundation as a feudal lord, and vice-versa.

[-] GreenBeard@lemmy.ca 1 points 19 hours ago

In principle you are correct, in practice the functional difference is very much negligible. As anyone who has ever tried to hold a plutocrat accountable in court can tell you, their equality under the law is more theoretical than how the world really works. The cults of personality, the careful reputational management, the nepotism and cronyism, dynastic rule and insularity, it's all there, it's just got a different window dressing.

On paper their power is different. In practice, not so much.

[-] PugJesus@piefed.social 1 points 18 hours ago

As anyone who has ever tried to hold a plutocrat accountable in court can tell you, their equality under the law is more theoretical than how the world really works.

That's not the point being made by the legal distinction. The point is not that a plutocracy is vulnerable to the rule of law while an aristocracy is not - the question of the strength of rule of law is separate from the question of aristocracy or plutocracy. The point is that the basis of aristocratic power comes (in part) from a position of extraordinary legal privilege, not simply being able to escape consequences for crimes.

The cults of personality, the careful reputational management, the nepotism and cronyism, dynastic rule and insularity, it’s all there, it’s just got a different window dressing.

What you're complaining about ere can be applied to any elite.

[-] GreenBeard@lemmy.ca 1 points 18 hours ago

The point is that the basis of aristocratic power comes (in part) from a position of extraordinary legal privilege, not simply being able to escape consequences for crimes.

We're so very close but we're not quite getting that last point. What I'm saying is it's a distinction with very little meaningful difference. It's interesting from an academic point of view, but that's it. How they rationalize their privilege and sell their legitimacy to people makes no difference.

[-] PugJesus@piefed.social 3 points 17 hours ago

It's more than just academic. The question is not whether aristocracy or plutocracy acts in a fundamentally better or worse way than the other, which you seem to be focused on, but whether they act in a different way from the other, which they very much do. The basis of their power comes from different roots, and because of that, they have different interests, different goals, different avenues of action, different preferences in compromise with wider society. Failing to understand that will result in failing to understand the reasoning for political maneuvering by one or the other.

[-] SmackemWittadic@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I can't imagine the apathy these people have for human* rights, despite seeing the actions this apathy leads to every day

[-] stray@pawb.social 1 points 1 day ago

What does it mean that you've put an asterisk next to human? Is it just because of the context of vampires or is there like a broader meaning I'm not familiar with?

[-] SmackemWittadic@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago

Oh no, I had a feeling that wasn't the best terminology. I've offended the bees, haven't I?

[-] stray@pawb.social 1 points 20 hours ago

I'm not offended, if that's what you mean. I'm just curious what it means because I haven't seen it before and can only guess.

[-] SmackemWittadic@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

Oh I just made a spelling mistake and was trying it into a dumb joke

[-] Solumbran@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago

I'd rather have anti-fascists play as fascists, than the opposite.

this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2026
734 points (98.0% liked)

RPGMemes

15402 readers
705 users here now

Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS