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?
this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2026
733 points (98.4% liked)
RPGMemes
15729 readers
574 users here now
Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(16 replies)
I mean, that's more the definition of... well, aristocracy.
Fascism is largely a creation of the modern age and mass politics.
Aristocracy has shown a tendancy to lead to fascism, as can be seen in what is currently happening in the US
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.
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
There is a difference between aristocracy and oligarchy. Aristocracy is under the thumb of the monarch, oligarchy isn't.
On the Wikipedia page, it states that oligarchy is "Aristocracy's corrupt counterpart".
At the end of the day there is no way an aristocracy doesn't become corrupt, so the result is just a label
Fascism is what you get when Aristocracy gets a business degree. The difference between a feudal lord and a CEO is non-farm income.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I firmly disagree. There is no meaningful difference in motivation or expected outcome. The behaviour is functionally identical. In neither case is there any commitment to compromise with society, both Aristocracy and Plutocracy leverage economic factors to control and contain the wider community, to arbitrary and capricious ends; frequently little more than the further consolidation of power. The terminology is different, it sounds different, but it does not behave different in any meaningful way. Any social contract is entirely grounded in what we choose to demand as a society, not intrinsic to the flavour of elite class.
It's the same motive, the same tools, and the same outcome, just re-branded and with a fresh coat of paint. Plutocracy in this era leverages scientific and evidence based psychological conditioning, social control, and new communication mediums to play on a variety of fundamental cognitive biases and limitations instead of leveraging religion alone as the primary means of containment of the governed, nothing more. As I said, it's Aristocracy with a business degree. If you want to get specific it's Aristocracy with a business degree and a marketing team instead of just the clergy.
I can't imagine the apathy these people have for human* rights, despite seeing the actions this apathy leads to every day
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?
Oh no, I had a feeling that wasn't the best terminology. I've offended the bees, haven't I?
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.
Oh I just made a spelling mistake and was trying it into a dumb joke
I'd rather have anti-fascists play as fascists, than the opposite.
Being a novice to the lore, I'd say anyone who unironically thinks the Camarilla are right is someone I would punch.
Eat the Reich
Good on them for stating it upfront though. (The mention of “alt-right” indicates a more recent version?).
Back in the 90’s/early 00’s it definitely attracted people both left and right winged.
However from my personal experience right wingers was more prevalent in wargaming compared to rpg’s. (Which really sucked because there you were enjoying a nice back n forth about Warhammer and then out comes the racist nazi talk…)
Games Workshop did good by making a pretty strong statement a while ago. But I’m afraid it’ll always be a thing.
the problem is that they have no media literacy (well, barely any literacy at all) so the satirical nature of Warhammer goes far over their head and they instead unironically think the politics in the game are based.
they don't realize the nazi shit in these games is supposed to be grimdark authoritarian hellscape dystopias, not utopias....
but they can take grimdark authoritarian hellscapes as long as they're run by nazis.
They think they’d be space marines or inquisitors in that world. You know one of the one-in-a-trillion kinda folks.
Welcome to Flashlight Brigade Conscription! If you face the enemy, you will die. If you refuse to face the enemy, the nearest Commisar will execute you for treason. Same if you try to run. If you want to live, maybe hope for whichever enemy to adopt you as a pet, but that's less preferable than death in almost all cases.
I was leery of VtM for a long time because I'd always thought of the mythology of vampires generally to be, well, in line with certain kinds of violent sexual acts that I viscerally did not want to roleplay.
Finally decided to read the lore. Honestly? The setting is genuinely far more complex than I had given it credit for. Anarchs forever!
Yeah this is V5, first published in 2018 when the term "alt-right" was current. Before they just became the mainstream right.
I don't know if this quote is from the original release or a later revision, though. Shortly after V5's release, White Wolf was shut down because of systemic issues. Multiple rather extreme right-wing references made their way into the original book, including Russian anti-gay purges in Chechnya and options to play as neonazis. I think there might have been allegations more directly against senior White Wolf staff.
So Paradox, the owners of White Wolf, disbanded the company of White Wolf and brought production of all World of Darkness in-house (plus contracted out to third-parties, like Renegade). Changing options to make tjen more inclusive and remove harmful ones was done during this time.
Just last year, Paradox reconstituted White Wolf under a team that had been working under Paradox's World of Darkness team.
The amount of fascists that played in my town is what turned me off of White Wolf. That and the sex pests trying to seduce the ladies with die rolls in real life.
Isn't this the game Rod Ferrell (Vampire Clan murderer) was obsessed with? Maybe that's why fascists like it.
Rod Ferrell
Vesaaaaaaaaago, what a fuckwit ahah
*Acided.
view more: next ›