What stops mages from killing [Insert hostile supernatural] here en-masse?

[Michael]

I know what they meant. The question is a statement of moral affront.

Also, no.

Sorry, what are you saying no to?

[totalgit]

The Pax Arcanum.

[saibot]

Adding one more argument to the point that focusing on vampires means neglecting the Seers: Since vampires are well-aware and well-experienced in matters of intense diplomacy and brinksmanship, it is worth noting that as far as the conflict between mages are concerned, both sides prefer to keep the Kindred neutral and out of it. Even if we assume exterminating all the vampires in a city was as easy as has been suggested (but also counterarguments have been provided for), the support vampires would give to the other side during this time can make this a Pyrrhic victory at best. Given how often Kindred would be interested in the same spheres as the Seers, vampires may actually be more likely to have first contact with their pawns than Pentacle machinations.
Vampires do not need to care about the deep metaphysical conflict playing out between the Pentacle and the Seers. They only need to understand that there are two factions of mages who would both want any advantage they can get their hands on in their struggles. If the Pentacle gets too aggressive against the local Kindred, they in turn will make what deals they can with the Seers. It is in the interest of the Pentacle to keep Kindred society as ignorant as possible of mage conflicts. Failing that, keep them neutral. And a campaign of extermination would very much go against that goal. Besides, on the big picture level, any pie vampires have a stake in is at least not a pie the Seers have claimed.

Also, vampires backed into a corner are liable to reproduce explosively and desperately to get what cannon fodder they can throw at the problem. A reaction that both the Pentacle and Ministries would rather avoid.

[ArcaneArts]

Adding one more argument to the point that focusing on vampires means neglecting the Seers: Since vampires are well-aware and well-experienced in matters of intense diplomacy and brinksmanship, it is worth noting that as far as the conflict between mages are concerned, both sides prefer to keep the Kindred neutral and out of it. Even if we assume exterminating all the vampires in a city was as easy as has been suggested (but also counterarguments have been provided for), the support vampires would give to the other side during this time can make this a Pyrrhic victory at best. Given how often Kindred would be interested in the same spheres as the Seers, vampires may actually be more likely to have first contact with their pawns than Pentacle machinations.
Vampires do not need to care about the deep metaphysical conflict playing out between the Pentacle and the Seers. They only need to understand that there are two factions of mages who would both want any advantage they can get their hands on in their struggles. If the Pentacle gets too aggressive against the local Kindred, they in turn will make what deals they can with the Seers. It is in the interest of the Pentacle to keep Kindred society as ignorant as possible of mage conflicts. Failing that, keep them neutral. And a campaign of extermination would very much go against that goal. Besides, on the big picture level, any pie vampires have a stake in is at least not a pie the Seers have claimed.

Also, vampires backed into a corner are liable to reproduce explosively and desperately to get what cannon fodder they can throw at the problem. A reaction that both the Pentacle and Ministries would rather avoid.

One thing I noted in a side conversation, and was something of gist when I chatted about the vampires ability to respond, is that picking vampires as one of the two targets for this hypothetical is a phenomenally bad idea given how much of the history of vampires has a particular relationship towards witchery. The Lancea et Sanctum alone are, on top of being one of the better connected Covenants between branches, a literal magic-using, witch-hunting crusader order of vampires (and yes, their particular tools work against the Awakened-it may not be as effective since so much of what they're attacking are yantras and not the actual direct working of magic, but their combat style still limits options, and their Sorcerous Eunuchs are still magically dampened) whose sidejob of grabbing and keeping dangerous artifacts means they have stores of equipment that keeps paces with the Mysterium. The other Covenants all bring their sideways angles that makes them a giant pain in the ass (Oaths turns their hierarchy into supercharging all tiers, Carthian Law turns power against itself, Cruac is stupidly powerful, and the Ordo's entire schtick is all crooked and twisting angle of approach).

I wouldn't say going after Beasts is really that much of a better affair, but at least they don't have a major cult dedicated to this exact problem due to a long history of it being a problem for them.

Sorry, what are you saying no to?

The added no is that the logic that the Ladder and the Council would be opposed to monsters on some sort of principle. We know flat out that monsters hold a place in the Ladder's vision of society-sure, it's at the bottom*, but it's there. The Free Council, as far as I know, doesn't have any particular statement of stance beyond that, but given that there are a number of Legacies and Nameless Orders that do have relationships and even foundations with and in the other supernaturals and their societies, it's not hard to imagine them being open towards monsters being a part of society.

The biggest problem, though, is this notion that monsters like vampires and beasts are somehow objectional to a society of people that has manipulation and exploitation through Mind and Life baked into their expectations. The Moros are a premier case of the sort of necromancers that piss Sin-Eaters off. The Thyrsus are often disruptions akin to Idigam for werewolves, especially because they hold no value to Harmony. The Acanthus and Mastigos toy with lives in a way that would make any vampire or demon envious, and every changeling and deviant terrified. The Obrimos have a conviction to structures that any Arisen upholding the Law of Suffering would find admirable.

The moral objection this thread is founded on only works in a world where the Pentacle Alliance are the good guys and some of the other monsters are the bad guys. They're not, and all of them know it.

*And let's take a second to appreciate how the Ladder neatly illustrate a point I've been making, that the order of with a vocal virulence against the gods who fuck with the lives of the weak explicitly place deviants and changelings(in that latter case, literal victims of literal gods and a literal system that does not have a place for them) below the homeless human-yes, both are terrible scenarios and should have something done about it, but the overall point is that this is a fairly literal case of good intentions not always having good results, and the way mages get bad about prioritizing the ideal over the reality, and how that can become particularly hypocritical-which is the point, and even fine. It makes them people, and that's one thing that emerges from Chronicles on the whole-peoples is peoples, all of them with their own shit.

[TempleBuilder]

Presumably, it should be on their [the Ladder and Council] radar because it's the logical outcome of their beliefs.

Is it? The Ladder is named after the concept of, well a Ladder. Anyone should be able to climb up the great Ladder of being, under the ideals of Ladder. Sounds to me like the most logical path is to offer “uplifting” to any who were formerly human, aka a cure. Yes, this is probably impossible without Archmastery, but I remind you the Ladder openly thinks that the universe is cruel, and they they should replace the Exarchs to make the world better for everyone. I guarantee you, if the Silver Ladder actually won, broken souls would absolutely be able to be mended, and that’s what makes almost all of the game lines what they are.

As for the Free Council, well they have more of an argument with the whole “destroy the servants of the Lie” thing, but not everyone agrees with that. Some might limit that to just seers, and some might want to put sleeper institutions to the torch. Plus, not everyone agrees on what destroy means. Some are pacifistic, and say destroy can mean convert. Not to mention, some cheesy mage is absolutely using techne to model actually being a vampire.

[ArcaneArts]

Is it? The Ladder is named after the concept of, well a Ladder. Anyone should be able to climb up the great Ladder of being, under the ideals of Ladder. Sounds to me like the most logical path is to offer “uplifting” to any who were formerly human, aka a cure. Yes, this is probably impossible without Archmastery, but I remind you the Ladder openly thinks that the universe is cruel, and they they should replace the Exarchs to make the world better for everyone. I guarantee you, if the Silver Ladder actually won, broken souls would absolutely be able to be mended, and that’s what makes almost all of the game lines what they are.

As for the Free Council, well they have more of an argument with the whole “destroy the servants of the Lie” thing, but not everyone agrees with that. Some might limit that to just seers, and some might want to put sleeper institutions to the torch. Plus, not everyone agrees on what destroy means. Some are pacifistic, and say destroy can mean convert. Not to mention, some cheesy mage is absolutely using techne to model actually being a vampire.

As linked above, the Silver Ladder of Being is more akin to the Great Chain of Being-the Ladder believes in social mobility, fiercely, and it's one of their better traits, but they also do believe there's an innate hierarchy to individuals-not everyone is meant to be Awakened, as an example(and while I agree with them, any actual implementation of this is where the Trouble Begins, so). It's pretty well spelled out that monsters exist at the bottom of the ladder-which means yes, they believe in a coexistance with monsters, but it doesn't mean they believe in resolving those problems. A Changeling is much more than a shredded soul, but you have to convince the Ladder that a changeling needs mystical social mobility into not being a changeling in the first place, an argument that to my understanding is not typicially codified.

As for the Free Council, as mentioned previously, a fair number of Legacies and Nameless Orders have connection or foundation in monsters and their societies, and it's unlikely only the ones that weren't like that got into the Council. There is a general emphasis that human culture shapes and creates the Supernal, but at the end of the day, culture is still their symbolism, and monstrous organizations, from the Elysiums and Covenants of Vampires to the World Family Tree of Beast, are demonstrably magical structures already, and thus arguably particularly potent magical symbols*.

*In fact, Beasts probably double down on this given the nature of Horrors as Mother's Land/Anima Mundi/World's Soul goetia bathed/dressed/transformed into Temenos/Primordial Dream/Humanity's Soul goetia. Beast's ouroboros of monstrous humanity and humane monstrosity taken to it's farthest extreme of the tree going back to the Dark Mother has gotta be a particular kind of shiny for the Free Council.

[orathaic]

Is it? The Ladder is named after the concept of, well a Ladder. Anyone should be able to climb up the great Ladder of being, under the ideals of Ladder. Sounds to me like the most logical path is to offer “uplifting” to any who were formerly human, aka a cure. Yes, this is probably impossible without Archmastery, but I remind you the Ladder openly thinks that the universe is cruel, and they they should replace the Exarchs to make the world better for everyone. I guarantee you, if the Silver Ladder actually won, broken souls would absolutely be able to be mended, and that’s what makes almost all of the game lines what they are.

I'm sure the Ladder think that, but inevitable hubris will raise its head and mess things up on the way there. Some sacrifices will be made or asked which will go too far, and individuals will baulk at the requirements 'for the greater good'.

If the ladder won. Is so big of a question that entire chronicles could he built around it, and the Archmaster / Pax Imperial interactions level stuff would certainly mean some Patron God /Spirit/ aspect of reality protecting Vampires means wiping them out is not going to easily be a footnote.

Maybe there is a metaphilosopical reason vampires are needed (preying on humans to keep the humans on their toes, fear to drive the human away from the darkness - Circle of the Crone would definitely claim they are an essential part of the ecosystem). And that principle has a god-level patron.

Who knows, maybe the Aeon of Death has a hand to play. Maybe the Anima Mundi representation of Death is represented in vampiric nature somehow... Tonnes of possible mysteries which would make this more interesting than "mage genocide others splatts".

[ArcaneArts]

If the ladder won. Is so big of a question that entire chronicles could he built around it, and the Archmaster / Pax Imperial interactions level stuff would certainly mean some Patron God /Spirit/ aspect of reality protecting Vampires means wiping them out is not going to easily be a footnote.

Don't quote me on this, but I'm fairly certain the highest metaphysical tier of consideration for vampires are the Curses themselves-the amalgamated virus-maledictions that have pooled together and woven themselves into the particular current forms for the Clans and the generally unified makeup of the Kindred.

Obligatory "Whether those curses are sublimated Parliments of Strix or not is a question that makes vampires toss in their daysleep. Admittedly, it is cool to imagine archmages going to bargain with the powers over vampirism only to see scores of yellow eyes opening on the branches of a dead tree." here.

[Michael]

The added no is that the logic that the Ladder and the Council would be opposed to monsters on some sort of principle. We know flat out that monsters hold a place in the Ladder's vision of society-sure, it's at the bottom*, but it's there.

I would suggest actually reading the book that he was summarising, it's a little more complex. To clarify, what it actually says on the matter of other monsters in the SL's plans:

Yet they [other monsters] might serve the dream of an Awakened Nation in some way — those that still feel some connection and sympathy to human beings, that is.

Vampires explicitly do not fall into that category. There's an entire section dedicated to how much the SL want to genocide vampires, and how they simply don't have the resources.

The Free Council, as far as I know, doesn't have any particular statement of stance beyond that, but given that there are a number of Legacies and Nameless Orders that do have relationships and even foundations with and in the other supernaturals and their societies, it's not hard to imagine them being open towards monsters being a part of society.

It's not hard to imagine, but again, it's not what their book says. It's not as dogmatic as the Ladder, but it's explicit that plenty of them see vampires as 'servants of the Lie', and that the main group who have any interaction with vampires, tend to be hunting them. (Again, there are reasons given that they haven't simply wiped out vampires, and it's that it's hard).

The moral objection this thread is founded on only works in a world where the Pentacle Alliance are the good guys and some of the other monsters are the bad guys. They're not, and all of them know it.

But they clearly don't all know that. You or I can see that there's not actually that much separating mages from the other monsters (indeed, that they are also a kind of monster). A lack of self-awareness is precisely the weakness of mages.

Is it? The Ladder is named after the concept of, well a Ladder. Anyone should be able to climb up the great Ladder of being, under the ideals of Ladder. Sounds to me like the most logical path is to offer “uplifting” to any who were formerly human, aka a cure. Yes, this is probably impossible without Archmastery, but I remind you the Ladder openly thinks that the universe is cruel, and they they should replace the Exarchs to make the world better for everyone. I guarantee you, if the Silver Ladder actually won, broken souls would absolutely be able to be mended, and that’s what makes almost all of the game lines what they are.

It is if you follow what their book says. To be honest, I think your version makes more sense.

As for the Free Council, well they have more of an argument with the whole “destroy the servants of the Lie” thing, but not everyone agrees with that.

Absolutely not everyone agrees with it. It would appear though that that is the default. Like, there's a point made that actually, some Libertines have vampire friends, and they have to try and steer the Council away from them.

[ArcaneArts]

Vampires explicitly do not fall into that category. There's an entire section dedicated to how much the SL want to genocide vampires, and how they simply don't have the resources.

1) I'm gonna need Tome of the Pentacle for a clarification on this in a post-Contagion PG world, but I honestly would need clarification on this at any point after the second edition core came out, because
2) *wildly gestures at the Humanity trait*
and 3) *mildly gestures at the overall trend of Second Edition Chronicles de-emphasizing assumed hostility between splats on the whole*

Like, don't get me wrong, I remember that bit, and text is the only true universal as these things go-but there has been this tenor in the conversation ever since open discussion on Awakening Second Edition started that of some of the things that are getting buffed out-as an example mentioned previously, the Precept of Hubris originally didn't have an absolute coverage of Sleepers, and in fact the Precept of Secrecy originally covered most of the acts against Sleepers (which says a lot about what the actual problem was in first edition), a fact that doesn't hold true in Second Edition-and that old stance on vampires feels very much like it's on the chopping block.

Still, if we must be textual that way, you also resolve the logistical argument that supported the moral objection-flat out, the book tells you that it's not really feasible or useful to try.

[TempleBuilder]

Annnnd it ate Arcane’s post.

I don’t think I have the Silver Ladders book, but as I understand, they come from a position of Humanity is a Beautiful Thing and Humans were denied their birthright of being able to truly self-actualize the way they should by uncaring gods. Mages are just humans who can self-actualize to their fullest potential, which is divine. Not everyone wants the same thing, people can be happy just living a mundane life. And they should be free to spend it that way. But those who have the drive to achieve the greatest heights, should also be allowed too. They also recognize that Not everyone is equal. They then sort people by how much they should/do influence others, and of course, put themselves on the top, but as I understand, the ideology genuinely wants others to live their best lives. Given that monsters are on the Ladder, I don’t see why “mystical social mobility” would be a hard sell. To the Ladder, being human means being able to self-actualize. Becoming a monster is much like losing one’s eyes or legs. To do it on purpose, is something I doubt the ideology is able to comprehend. That’s why I’d expect them to frame it as a “curse”, because they genuinely wouldn’t understand why anyone would want to stay a Vampire or a Changeling. So, I’d need to read that passage on vampires in more detail. Seems weird.

[ArcaneArts]

It seems to have eaten Builder's post as well.

My post was mostly a "Second Edition indicates a citation needed, but also if we go by the book, we also get the answer that it's just not logistically feasible or useful, problem solved."

EDIT: Also, because I know I can exploit publishing timelines and do not feel remotely bad for it, if we accept the first edition text as still holding true(and I must admit that I generally advocate for that, so it would be churlish of me to pull back on it now), we can still say the "Should" is still a problematically unsupported argument for Beasts, and personal feelings of everyone on the subject aside, I think we can agree it's weird to assume a textually unsupported blanket mandate against a splat designed around crossover facilitation and contribution on a corner of the world that isn't it's textual exception, and accepting that, certain problems do become apparent in the base argument.

[Michael]

3) *mildly gestures at the overall trend of Second Edition Chronicles de-emphasizing assumed hostility between splats on the whole*

Well, it's not assumed hostility exactly on the individual level. Like, the section provides a sample ally character.

Still, if we must be textual that way, you also resolve the logistical argument that supported the moral objection-flat out, the book tells you that it's not really feasible or useful to try.

But this returns us to the original issue of the thread. It's a handwave; using narrative to paper over mechanics. (To be clear that's not a criticism, I think it's just the natural result of the way the game is constructed.)

Sure, if your players don't care, then it works fine. But if they get into vampire hunting, and suddenly find that it's actually very easy, then that's potentially the issue.

Also, because I know I can exploit publishing timelines and do not feel remotely bad for it, if we accept the first edition text as still holding true(and I must admit that I generally advocate for that, so it would be churlish of me to pull back on it now), we can still say the "Should" is still a problematically unsupported argument for Beasts, and personal feelings of everyone on the subject aside, I think we can agree it's weird to assume a textually unsupported blanket mandate against a splat designed around crossover facilitation and contribution on a corner of the world that isn't it's textual exception, and accepting that, certain problems do become apparent in the base argument.

I mean, keep in mind that this isn't about mages in general at this point, just one or two of their Orders. Like, the other four are pretty indifferent to other splats (and for the FC, it's basically only vampires that they have a serious issue).

Given that monsters are on the Ladder, I don’t see why “mystical social mobility” would be a hard sell.

The section on the hierarchy does actually mention that as a possibility.

Though I wouldn't oversell the importance of monsters being on the ladder; like, it's at least in part a practical guide for how cryptopolies should be managed. The Terata are kinda only on the ladder for the purposes of excluding them. They're the part of humanity which will not be included in the Ladder's plans.

[Cauthon]

"They broke my toys, why shouldn't I eradicate them?!"

Or, more in character -

"These... leeches have spoilt twelve of our best Awakening candidates this month alone, and as far as we can tell it isn't even intentional. We'll need to strike hard, and fast, and thoroughly, but it needs to be done."

In all seriousness, a Consilium or an Elysium, either could destroy the other if they had good intelligence and blitzed the other. It would be bloody, and there's a high risk of not being thorough enough to avoid retribution, bit it's hardly impossible. Mundane bombs tied into car ignition and other boobytraps are just as dangerous to Mages as to humans, and Mages can cloak the traps from Vampiric senses if not just create out-of-context problems.

[Tessie]

Given the right circumstances, it's definitely possible for a cabal or even a single mage to wipe out all the vampires in a city. And it probably has happened at least once in the setting, considering how mages and vampires have existed for millennia among Sleepers.
But the required circumstances (that the mage/cabal has the motivation, the right tools, the right knowledge, the right mindset to go through with it, the time and resources to spare, no pushback from other mages, and that the vampires doesn't have the right defenses, investigative tools, or raw power to withstand an assault) means it's extremely rare. I'd say most attempts (though there probably haven't been that many, relatively speaking) lack at least one of these factors and thus end up so disastrous for both sides that if a higher ranking mage catches wind of the plans, it's not going to be a fun time for the attempted genociders.
Just the risks involved should get almost all mages who actually has the means to succeed to think twice before ever attempting something like this.