Just some general thoughts:
I think the Second Inquisition is supposed to be the "Sabbat" of vampire hunters. They're horrible monsters, the worst of the worst. There are other hunter groups (Hunter the Reckoning) that are more player friendly. You're also going to have groups like The Arcanum and others who are maybe not as bad as the Second Inquisition but are still kinda bad. Ultimately the Second Inquisition are supposed to play the antagonist/foil role in both games where the PCs are Vampires and in games where the PCs are other Hunters.
When I look at the Second Inquisition I'm reminded of Werewolf: the Apocalypse. Werewolves hunt supernatural parasitic monsters that disguise themselves as humans and hide within the shadows of everyday life. And when werewolves go to kill these things, sometimes innocents get caught in the crossfire. But werewolves, generally, try to limit human casualties. Even with fairly anti-human factions like the Red Talons, burning down an apartment complex filled with women and children in order to kill a powerful fomori or bane isn't something they'd do, or at least they'd try and hide the fact. Ultimately werewolves have lines in the sand and those who start crossing them by slaughtering innocents will end up facing sanctions and losing renown and respect.
That isn't the case with the Second Inquisition and they engage in behavior that makes that comparable in monstrousness of the monsters they kill. They will likely end up with far more civilian deaths and the deaths of bystanders than other groups who hunt and kill vampires. Still, there is room for philosophical and ethical debate.
Vampires are parasitic monsters, so removing vampires from existence would probably be a net positive to the world. But, the tactics the Second Inquisition involve a lot of collateral deaths. A vampire might kill one person every few years, so 30 over the course of a century. If you kill 100 people when you burn down a building to kill the vampire hiding inside, you may have ended up killing more people than the vampire would have during the course of its existence. Of course, then you have exceptions - when Zapathasura awakened, millions or even tens of millions of people died as a result (possibly more when you include people in other locations killed by frenzying Ravnos, chimerical apparitions that had become real, etc). Unless the Second Inquisition sets off some tactical nukes in major cities it's unlikely the innocent people they kill in their vampire hunts will compare to that.
Still, most humans in the World of Darkness are killed by other humans (murders, car wrecks, wars, genocide, etc). Baring the Week of Nightmares, the number of people killed in the World of Darkness by vampires is probably closer to that of a statistical blip than anything else. And even with the Week of Nightmares, many of those deaths were the result of Technocratic Space Lasers™ so you could attribute many of those deaths of other humans. Now from a purely mathematical point of view, you'll eventually arrive at a specific number where the amount of people killed by vampires continuing to exist outweighs the number of people killed by the Second Inquisition in their course to eradicate vampires. But then there's the question, is it really worth killing that many innocent people in order to end something that's basically a statistical blip? The Second Inquisition would likely save more lives by spending their time/money trying to end poverty and world hunger than by killing vampires (and lots of humans along the way).
I think the Second Inquisition is supposed to be the "Sabbat" of vampire hunters. They're horrible monsters, the worst of the worst. There are other hunter groups (Hunter the Reckoning) that are more player friendly. You're also going to have groups like The Arcanum and others who are maybe not as bad as the Second Inquisition but are still kinda bad. Ultimately the Second Inquisition are supposed to play the antagonist/foil role in both games where the PCs are Vampires and in games where the PCs are other Hunters.
When I look at the Second Inquisition I'm reminded of Werewolf: the Apocalypse. Werewolves hunt supernatural parasitic monsters that disguise themselves as humans and hide within the shadows of everyday life. And when werewolves go to kill these things, sometimes innocents get caught in the crossfire. But werewolves, generally, try to limit human casualties. Even with fairly anti-human factions like the Red Talons, burning down an apartment complex filled with women and children in order to kill a powerful fomori or bane isn't something they'd do, or at least they'd try and hide the fact. Ultimately werewolves have lines in the sand and those who start crossing them by slaughtering innocents will end up facing sanctions and losing renown and respect.
That isn't the case with the Second Inquisition and they engage in behavior that makes that comparable in monstrousness of the monsters they kill. They will likely end up with far more civilian deaths and the deaths of bystanders than other groups who hunt and kill vampires. Still, there is room for philosophical and ethical debate.
Vampires are parasitic monsters, so removing vampires from existence would probably be a net positive to the world. But, the tactics the Second Inquisition involve a lot of collateral deaths. A vampire might kill one person every few years, so 30 over the course of a century. If you kill 100 people when you burn down a building to kill the vampire hiding inside, you may have ended up killing more people than the vampire would have during the course of its existence. Of course, then you have exceptions - when Zapathasura awakened, millions or even tens of millions of people died as a result (possibly more when you include people in other locations killed by frenzying Ravnos, chimerical apparitions that had become real, etc). Unless the Second Inquisition sets off some tactical nukes in major cities it's unlikely the innocent people they kill in their vampire hunts will compare to that.
Still, most humans in the World of Darkness are killed by other humans (murders, car wrecks, wars, genocide, etc). Baring the Week of Nightmares, the number of people killed in the World of Darkness by vampires is probably closer to that of a statistical blip than anything else. And even with the Week of Nightmares, many of those deaths were the result of Technocratic Space Lasers™ so you could attribute many of those deaths of other humans. Now from a purely mathematical point of view, you'll eventually arrive at a specific number where the amount of people killed by vampires continuing to exist outweighs the number of people killed by the Second Inquisition in their course to eradicate vampires. But then there's the question, is it really worth killing that many innocent people in order to end something that's basically a statistical blip? The Second Inquisition would likely save more lives by spending their time/money trying to end poverty and world hunger than by killing vampires (and lots of humans along the way).
Comment