Why Caitiff Are The Suck
isadorbg last edited by
As far as that bane thing… the Storyteller MAY MAY MAY MAY MAY always impose dice penalties on social tests. You also kinda glossed over the fact that the bane is really the cost of disciplines being higher.
Also… legit, guys… This is what the book starts with, if we’re gonna be nit picky and just pick the parts we want to so that our argument is the correct one:
Untouched by the Antediluvians, the Caitiff share no common bane.
Then it say they start with “suspect” which means that they cannot purchase status (SECT stuff). And part of the Caitiff “suspect flaw” is that the ST MAY impose the dice penalty. They MAY not, however.
Now let’s dissect the suspect flaw, which is under the Status heading:
Flaw: (•) Suspect. You’re not good with this sect at all. You weaseled out of a boon, broke an oath, or did something similar. You can try to stay out of sight and out of mind, but unless you somehow make amends, you suffer a two-dice penalty to all Social tests involving the offended faction.
It’s legit against a faction or the sect that “you offended” – so again if it’s not part of a sect… I will leave the rest unsaid.
They’re often discarded, exiled, or choose to distance
themselves from the clans that despise them. Pure vampires, the Caitiff make up for what they lose in respect and pedigree by flexible blood and the absence of a crippling bane. Proud or ashamed of their clanless nature as they may be, these creatures have no family and represents vampirism at its purest and most individualistic.
A Caitiff’s position in the hierarchy of Kindred is at the bottom, just above
the thin-blooded who should not have been born at all, and they are forced to fight for their place or fall and be forgotten. The Caitiff see little point in Embracing mortals unlikely to make it through the night on their own
It’s that part that the ST’s want us to rp and that is represented in the first aspect of the bane which may involve dices penalty.
Aarkon last edited by
Let’s also remember 2 things that Stef has put up in regards to Sang.
The first being this article Embracing Tone
Which dovetails into this article by Stef Caitiff/Thin Bloods and you
The latter point’s out how the Staff (ST’s/GM’s) feel the tone of the game should be handled.
The second being the article that implores players to actually stick to, not fight against what the GM/ST’s have set as that tone.
Duh last edited by
@isadorbg – You skipped an awful lot to pull up only your points again.
isadorbg last edited by
I am that evil muhahaha!
Thinblood are actually very often outright killed, but a few are kept alive for several reasons:
- If none were kept alive, they would be a myth. A scary bedtime story to tell the neonates to curb their desires to embrace without precautions taken. This is one of the reasons why they tend to be branded by the Camarilla if found out and kept alive.
- Thinbloods are useful as they can do things most other vampires can’t. Their power set can change NIGHTLY. They can manufacture powers ranging from copied disciplines to perfect self sex changes to making bagged blood nutritious for vampires who couldn’t normally drink it to even waking other vampires from torpor without a blood bond. All that in addition to being able to being able to be out in the sun for a time, sometimes effectively indefinitely.
- They are also often relatively easy to take down (at night) should they step too far out of line. They are often (though not always) “squishier” than a real vampire. Each of them comes with 1-3 additional flaws that can range from an inconvenience to truly debilitating. You can use them for their benefits while hedging your bets a little that you can take them down when they’ve run out of usefulness.
- All vampires, and so very often the Camarilla, are hypocrites and opportunists. The book talks about the Camarilla dangling one of their useless, bloodhunted members to a Thinblood as a reward for being incredibly useful and so the Thinblood can join the Camarilla. The book also explicitly states you are allowed to take both the Branded by Camarilla Thinblood Flaw and Camarilla Contact Thinblood Merit BECAUSE of the hypocrisy and double-dealing.
Everyone who chose to play a Caitiff or Thinblood came into the game being told what we expected of other people’s interactions with them. There was actually a large section of how to treat the 2 types of clanless in the pre-launch workshop.
We absolutely DO expect this tone to be upheld, as can be read in the announcements Aarkon has helpfully linked.
As to the original question, you will have heard from someone, somewhere that Caitiff and Thinbloods are bad for reasons which you may or may not know the details of. If you come into the game not knowing much about kindred at all, you will very quickly learn that you should find Caitiff suspect and Thinbloods completely shunned - whether or not you are ever given the details of why. Isaac listed a bunch of good things to consider when wondering how exactly you should calibrate your public interactions.
As for hindering RP, all Caitiff and Thinblooded characters are playing hard mode. On purpose from an OOC perspective. This does not stop you from making shady side deals out of the public eye with even a thinblood.
Duh last edited by
I want to make it clear that although I have opinions, it doesn’t mean that I won’t uphold the game that the ST’s want to run.
Zahana last edited by
One of my biggest issues with the V5 book is the missing opinions section of the clan description section, so I’m going to pull a bit from V20 on the subject. Every clan is different in how they view Caitiff the same way as they all have different views of the other clans. Brujah, Gangrel, and Malkavians are going to be more tolerant (probably because they are responsible for more of them) than the Ventrue or Toreador are. That doesn’t mean a Gangrel is going to be all buddy buddy with them, stay still aren’t to be trusted.
The same goes for the Sects in general. In a Camarilla cities, they are outcast and in some case the Scourge my be out there actively hunting them down for destruction. In Sabbat cities Panders are mocked, bullied, and on the bottom of the pecking order but there’s still the “Nobody picks on my little brother but me” mentality. Anarch cities might be a bit more accommodating cause yeah they’re still clanless scumbags, but at least they ain’t those assholes in the Tower.
From my perspective, the bottom line is that no one out there likes them. The degree as to how much they dislike them is going to very based on what clan a character is in and what there experience of vampire society has been.
On the question of it being a Bane or no:
If it were truly a Bane, the social stigma would supernaturally increase match their Bane Severity rating, even without other characters knowing their blood potency had increased. It would be like “All of a sudden I suspect Bill more than I used to.”
Further, a Caitiff who everyone believed to be fully clanned (including themselves) would fin that everyone hated them anyway, and that this wouldn’t increase significantly if it were later discovered that they were Caitiff. Peeps would be like “so that’s why no one likes the very charismatic and reliable person.”
Not really, because they would have struggled to get known as reluable and charismatic. The vast majority of unbound are ex camarilla and the stigma is there for reasons stated above. Now you could lie and hope nobody realises, but the stigma is still in full swing, hence the flaw. That is teputational and not supernatural, hence it not growing with BP. Caitiff were still hunted by the cam for generations, or driven out, and that legacy sticks
Ergo is social situation, not Bane. I think we just said same thing. To clarify: my comment was only about whether it counts as Bane or Not Bane, an argument about definition of Bane.
Analogy: 3rd Ed Tremere didn’t actually have a Clan Weakness. They imposed a socual situation on themselves, but the blood itself didn’t carry an inherent weakness with it at the moment if embrace.