Agent and cultist motivation

From: Dave K.

Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 15:48:11 EDT

While researching some religion topics (yes, they have mythos ties), i developed a strange concept that I'm going to work into some upcoming projects and I figured I'd throw it out to the list for discussion. In the CoC/DG universe, has anyone entertained the idea that the cultists are, for lack of a better word, the "good guys?" After all, they are the ones that are following the callings of the real dieties in the universe. They are in tune with the true reality of the universe and the nature of things. DG and others like them are attempting to suppress what is the truth. Maybe it is because of mankind's very resistance to the mythos that he is doomed to the EndTimes. We have always hidden behind institutions that obscure the true reality instead of rising up to embrace it. Other alien races, such as the Mi-Go, seem to live in a sort of harmony with the mythos reality (you never hear about the Mi-Go Endtimes, just ours). Maybe humanity could have achieved a sort of "status" like the other mythos races if we were more in tune to their reality.

Maybe, in a very twisted way by normal beliefs, the average cultist is just another type of "church-goer" in a sense. They are merely following the rites of their religion (which in the DG universe happens to be true). Maybe the power-mad wizards that are so often encountered are the mythos equivalent of a corrupt televangelist. What human society views as corruption, the universe views as nature. That's why the fight is inevitible, but is it this view that caused it in the first place?

Remember, I'm speaking in a CoC/DG sense, not attempting to justify RW cults. Just some food for thought... Thanks for the rant (again)

Allow me to elaborate. When I play CoC and DG, each has its own feel that I can best illustrate by looking at movies. CoC has a tendencies to take on the aspects of an "action" movie (in certain respects). The players are all part of the "Miskatonic Alumni Mythos Bashing and Polo Club." They wear the white hats, are the good guys. They fight a variety of (usually) Pulp-oriented type of villians who want to waken GOOs/rule the World/etc. There is nothing wrong with this approach and most certainly has its time and place. It allows the PCs (before they go mad) to feel good about themselves and their deeds.

I view DG like Apocalpyse Now and JFK, a gritty, dirty reality with no white or black, just grey. I don't want DG to fall into the category of white-hats versus the evil forces of C.U.L.T., like some action movie. It is easy for DG agents to know what to do when they face MJ or the Karotechia, modern re-tellings of the older pulp-type villians. What do the agents do when they are sent to recover a book or artifact from a seaside cult that has connections with the Deep Ones and are Cthulhu cultists, but have never committed a crime in their lives, content to live day by day until the rising of Ryleh? What do the PCs do when they confront a religion that openly professes allegience to the OGs and yet does more charity work than the other groups in an area (with no plots behind it)? They know the truth and are trying to "save" their fellow man. What do the agents do when they see what the results of that "mistaken" targeting of NATO warplanes and the villans they had bombed are now a few thousand battered refugees? What if a cultist's dying words aren't "I will rule the world yet..." but instead an "I had a dream" or "I tried to help you" message? And what of the cultist informant, selling out the others in his own power play. Is he a DG friendly or enemy?

I feel that if you are going to run a realistic game set in the shadowy world of intelligence, law enforcement and the military, you have to add that element of moral ambiguity. When you start putting faces on the cultists beyond "insane henchman #1" or "dabbling wizard with delusions of grandeur," you start adding another element to the game. Those types of villians have their place, but so do a more mundane type. Allow your PCs to see what it is truly like to serve an amoral organization. Its one thing to car bomb a Karotechia operative or make the solitary loose end disappear, another when their faced with one atrocity or another. Let them not realize who the true good guys are, as they cling to whatever beliefs help them keep their own sanity. Let them wonder if the other side isn't right. Cultists should run a gammut of personalities that does not stop with the occult version of a Cold War "Russkie." Their in the shadows, let them find what truly comes out of there. Well, I'll end this longer than planned rant, -Thanks,

From: "Benada, Rob"

Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 16:53:38 -0500

...Out of the darkness.

> *In the CoC/DG universe, has anyone entertained the idea that the cultists are, for lack of a better word, the "good guys?" After all, they are the ones that are following the callings of the real dieties in the universe. They are in tune with the true reality of the universe and the nature of things. DG and others like them are attempting to suppress what is*
>
>

I've always been of the "they are all fools" school of thought. The cultists that attempt to, in their own misguided way, serve the GOO's are only slightly more foolish than the people who fight against them. Given the antisocial tendencies of most CoC cultist I would say that are the "good guy's" only in their own minds: sacrificing just about everything to save a few. DG on the other hand is sacrificing a few to save many. They are both sacrificing otherwise unwilling individuals for a cause. Trying to prevent the destruction of what they care about.

By way of analogy: humanity are mites living on a very large over ripe, Orange. Some mites are attempting to lure flies and other larger insects in a desperate attempt to ensure their survival by hitching a ride. A few are working to stop/prevent the actions of the larger insects, knowing that, given time they would devour the world. Most of the mites are happily ignorant. Soon the world will be devoured, crushed, buried, and or burned when THEY come to take out the garbage.

Personally I wonder what the GOO fear? Who are the Outer Gods anyway? Do we really believe that they give any more of a dam about humanity than the GOO's do. I think that they just didn't want to be bothered by the big bugs so they put the lid on the garbage can. When the big bugs get out, they will bring out the Raid.

This leads to the theory that the End Times is The GOO's party time/spawning time just before the OG's show up to "take out the garbage".

From: "Shoggoth"

Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 00:19:23 +0200

> *While researching some religion topics (yes, they have mythos ties),*
>
>

[big snip to the end]

Well....what can i say..but absolutely correct?

I recall some short story (maybe in Nigthscapes) talking about the true revelations of apocalipsis , and the Pope being an Avatar of N. All the Catholic Church working towars the endtimes , and the second come of Jesus (when the stars are rigth??) , and what kind of kingdom will be instaured...

From: "Agent Quickclay"

I guess that particular viewpoint depends on your defintition of a "good guy". Apparently, your define 'good' as the equivalent of 'truth'. I would argue that any being (diety or not) that strives towards the ultimate destruction of a relatively weak and confused race (humans, for example) for further its own agenda can not be good. Therefore, even though it is 'real' and its followers are 'in harmony with it', it is not necessarily a force of good or galatic harmony. Those who follow an evil leader willingly are evil themselves and should be opposed if there is to be any chance for hope. In a nutshell: just because they are right doesn't mean that they are good guys...not when the truth is an abomination.

Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 19:11:14 -0400

From: Graeme Price

One or other of the Dave's wrote:

>  *In the CoC/DG universe, has anyone entertained the idea that the cultists are, for lack of a better word, the "good guys?" After all, they are the ones that are following the callings of the real dieties in the universe. They are in tune with the true reality of the universe and the nature of things. DG and others like them are attempting to suppress what is the truth.*
>
>

>
>
>
>

IIRC, we did cover something along these lines a few months back, with the (nasty and devious) idea of the cultists who were carrying out sacrifices to \_stop\_ something coming across from the other side. Investigators rub out cultists in the middle of the ceremony and are just patting themselves on the back when suddenly.... OH SHIT!

But it's a nice idea. One other semi-seditious thought crosses my mind. Fundamentally, DG is acting in an unconstitutional manner if it goes cult busting. As I understand it (and I'm only remotely familiar with the topic), the right to religious freedom (which one assumes includes the right not to get shot in the head by DG agents intent on disrupting your "worship") is one of the things absolutely protected under the US constitution. Wonder what the good citizens of Innsmouth think of that?

Now, having said that I guess I'd better get ready for a visit from a representative of cell A....

From: Mark McFadden

Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 20:13:59 EDT

<< I would argue that any being (diety or not) that strives towards the ultimate destruction of a relatively weak and confused race (humans, for example) for further its own agenda can not be good. >>

Just to confuse the issue:

This looks (superficially) like the metaphor a Vegan would use to describe me eating a hamburger.

Not that there is anything wrong with that. From the steer's POV I am Evil Incarnate. From several other human POVs I'm at least a sinner, since my supermarket is full of alternative food sources, yet I insist on having others kill animals for my consumption. Smug with my position on the food chain, I allow all manner of atrocities for my convenience, vanity or titillation.

Damn, and I seemed like such a nice guy.

I leave Good and Evil as labels that individuals use to describe their relationship to others. These are idiosynchratic value judgements, not observations of physical, quantifiable properties. What is the mass of Good, the polarity of Evil? What are the units of measurement? In the DG world (descended from Lovecraft's secular POV), the Mythos "deities" are not truly deities. They are not supernatural, they are entirely natural. We just can't comprehend the Big Picture. A GOO is only a "god" because some people serve it and worship it. However, with Heisenberg in mind, I do concede that a GOO may become more "godlike" \*because\* it is worshipped. But you can't blame the GOO for that, anymore than DOOM is to blame for the Colorado shootings.

So why does DG fight the Endtimes coming, in spite of it's inevitability? Because it's what we do.

When confronted with a threat, you can react in several ways:

1) You can pretend it's not there and get on with your life. Most of the world has done this since Hiroshima

2) You can try to get on it's good side and hope it recognizes submissive behavior

3) You can give up utterly and let it make the rules. Camus said Sisyphus would come to love his rock

4) You can attack, full-tilt boogy

5) You can stall for time.

There is a story that a thief was going to be executed, but he managed to strike a bargain with the Caliph. He promised that if given one year, he could teach the Caliph's horse to sing. If he failed to do so, he would go to his death with a smile.

Amused, the Caliph accepted the bargain.

The thief's friends asked what the point of the bargain was. The thief replied "A lot can happen in a year. We might be conquered by our enemies and I'll be released. The Caliph might die, and I'll be released by the new Caliph. I might die of natural causes. Hell, I might even teach that damn horse to sing."

In an Absurd universe, all you have is your style.

I absolutely refuse to love that fuckin' rock. And the instant those Furies aren't looking, I'm outta here.

From: ScottSaylo

Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 22:46:51 EDT

<< But it's a nice idea. One other semi-seditious thought crosses my mind. Fundamentally, DG is acting in an unconstitutional manner if it goes cult busting. As I understand it (and I'm only remotely familiar with the topic), the right to religious freedom (which one assumes includes the right not to get shot in the head by DG agents intent on disrupting your "worship") is one of the things absolutely protected under the US constitution. Wonder what the good citizens of Innsmouth think of that? >>

Actually the Constitution does not protect religion which infringes upon the rights and property of others. Human sacrifice is not sheltered by religious ritual even with a volunteer for the seat of honor. Neither does it protect animal sacrifice where it is denied by state and local ordinance. Plotting to destroy property or the government of the United STates is racketeering or terrorism under federal law and other law (poison gas case in Tokyo subways for example). Now the cultists being in violation of law and the Constitution does not give the players a legal right to shoot them down and blow up their churches. The Constitution does promise them protection under the "Due Process: clause of the constitution. In other words they must be charged, arraigned, indicted and tried in order to bring them to justice.

Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 23:10:58 -0400

From: Daniel Harms

>
>
>
>

> *While researching some religion topics (yes, they have mythos ties), i developed a strange concept that I'm going to work into some upcoming projects and I figured I'd throw it out to the list for discussion.*
>
>

>
>
>
>

> *In the CoC/DG universe, has anyone entertained the idea that the cultists are, for lack of a better word, the "good guys?"*
>
>

>
>
>
>

Absolutely. I've considered these things time to time from the viewpoint expressed in the works of occultist Kenneth Grant. Humanity is bound to self-destruction unless it can make contact with beings from outside the realms we know, and thereby catapult us to the next stage of our spiritual development. Those who oppose are dedicated to the ways and mores of an older time; this is unfortunate, but their instinctive loathing and fear may damn the rest of us.

From: "Jon Capps"

Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 00:06:52 -0400

Agent Quicklay heatedly denied accusations that he said:

> *I guess that particular viewpoint depends on your defintition of a "good guy". Apparently, your define 'good' as the equivalent of 'truth'. I would argue that any being (diety or not) that strives towards the ultimate destruction of a relatively weak and confused race (humans, for example) for further its own agenda can not be good. Therefore, even though it is 'real' and its followers are 'in harmony with it', it is not necessarily a force of good or galatic harmony. Those who follow an evil leader willingly are evil themselves and should be opposed if there is to be any chance for hope. In a nutshell: just because they are right doesn't mean that they are good guys...not when the truth is an abomination.*
>
>

You're losing sight of the context of this debate. In the DG universe, the concepts of "good," "evil," and "abomination" are human constructs. Sure, we can say that Cult X is inherently evil, but that's like saying it's funny or boring. It's a quality that (in the game setting) has no Absolute Meaning behind it. What Dave K is proposing is that there are cultists who are real people instead of cardboard cutouts. Yes, some of them are bent on traditional "Summon [insert GOO here]" plans, but others are using these cults for personal gain. And there are those who have the best interest of humanity in their heart and honestly believe their way is best. "Believe in Cthulhu, and He will save you". . . (for dessert ;).

For that last group, it ultimately boils down to the debate of "do the ends justify the means." For the cultists, apparently it does. For DG agents, it does not.

Ooh, I can see it now. Middle-aged guys with "Order of Aldeberan" fezzes at city intersections, asking for donations for their children's hospital.

Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 12:55:53 +0200

From: Davide Mana

Greetings.

The time for jokes being over, let's consider the point Dave made:

>
>
>
>

> *I feel that if you are going to run a realistic game set in the shadowy world of intelligence, law enforcement and the military, you have to add that element of moral ambiguity. When you start putting faces on the cultists beyond "insane henchman #1" or "dabbling wizard with delusions of grandeur," you start adding another element to the game.*
>
>

Perfect!

Moral ambiguity is a highly rewarding game element - provided you have players that can handle it.

On the other hand, I guess the cultists' good faith has never been an issue.

If we exclude the actual psychos - that should be in my opinion the exception to the rule - most cult members are just guys doing their bit in good faith.

The same can be said, sadly, for a whole lot of people out there in the real world (like the Serbian kids I get on my TV every day chanting silly propaganda songs about their destiny as savers of humanity). None of them really believes he's the bad guy.

That's why, incidentally, I objected oh-so long ago at the idea of the K. guys calling their secret airbase "Hell's-" whatever or other samesuch stuff.

We are dealing with people that's absolutely certain they are the good guys.

In their convinction they might even do something good.

And after all, they're going with the flow, right? Whatever evil might come from going with the flow, now?

I'll throw in my two cents of field-derived data at this point, if for no other reason, just to explain my outlook.

I live in a country that was under a Fascist regime for 20 years.

The Regime suppressed civil liberties, involved us in a series of stupid ventures culminating in WW2, happily joined in the extermination of minorities - the Jews to be more specific. They also built schools and hospitals, raised the lifestyle of the majority to a better level, crushed endemic organized crime in the South.

Paradoxically, they even increased the level of public information while all the while suppressing the freedom of speech.

Looking at only one side of the matter would mean labelling as "good" or "evil" that Regime; and it would be myopic.

The bad thing, the worst thing absolutely (and the hardest to stare in the face and cope with) is, it was\_both\_, and the evil side of it simply stands out clearer and more chilling, if you reflect about it, because it's offset by the good bits.

Add to this the fact the Regime was made of individuals, with the usual mix of crooks, psychos, well-meaning idealists and passive elements just going with the flow, and you find yourself knee-deep in a moral swamp from which it's extremely hard to find a level-headed way out. So in the end, you have to find your own rationalization.

Back to the game world, then...

So they are in good faith, and maybe they're even helping old ladies across the road.

Maybe they do not even practice human sacrifice. They just want to exercise their freedom of worship.

What does Delta Green do?

Probably the same that I do when [and I'm not making this up, crazy as it may sound] I hear "Friends of Earth"-types, people highly involved with the betterment of our living conditions (and chances) on the planet, advocating the elimination - be it active or passive - of "unfit" individuals (asthmatics, cardiopatics, anemics etc) that are weakening the gene pool and therefore damaging Mother Earth.

I take sides.

Actively.

All the good in the world is no justification for the evil that goes with it. Your definitions of good and evil may vary, but I think the rule stands. This is my rationalization, anyway.

End of rant.

Please flame gently.

PS: nice hornet's nest of a discussion you kicked up, Dave

Sure beats discussing gun calibres... ;>

From: Clairr O'Connor

Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 14:13:16 +0100

> *3) You can give up utterly and let it make the rules Camus said Sisyphus would come to love his rock*
>
>

Mark, I think you're trivialising here a little bit. Surely giving up utterly would mean that Sisyphus would simply give up in despair. By taking up the struggle with life (i.e. pushing his rock) he finds meaning in an otherwise meaningless existence.

> *In an Absurd universe, all you have is your style.*
>
>

....and your struggle.

From: Dave K

Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 10:57:44 EDT

You commit one blasphemy and already you're ready for "retirement." Were's the ACLU when I need them (probably defending those damned cultists) :).

I've noticed an interesting trend with many of the responses to my post that paints an interesting picture of DG portrayal (and one that's not far from the mark I wanted to achieve personally). DG is filled with hipocrites (that's meant as the organization, not a flame at any of us personally :) ).

DG is filled with the same "cold war mentality" that has been around for centuries. We feel that we have the moral "high ground" because we are "right" and/or "good." That's a dangerous philosophical ground to tread upon, but still we feel we have the justification. Not too many governments, religions or whatever have an oppression free background, but when we are members of them, we tend to gloss those points over. The Roman Catholic Church has as bloodstained hands as anybody, yet talk to a RC (I know, I'm one), and things like inquisitons, crusades, witchhunts and the likes are glossed over in view of that being past history and we should focus on what 'good" the church has done. Many Americans are "America, right or wrong," regardless of whatever scandal or atrocity has crossed our headlines. Many more want to put that behind us and get down to the present (as if many times they aren't connected). The Cold Warriors of the military and intelligence systems who carried out some rather shady deals, did it because they believed they were operating in America's best interests. We took a renegade Marine colonel operating in a secret cabal that was caught and elevated him to an almost hero status because he was one of our boys and had America's best interests at heart.

DG is no different, their view is just somewhat larger. We regularly talk on the list about the best ways to circumvent the constitution. We oppress peoples and information. We killed scores at Waco on flimsy pretenses of the Mythos and are view is that it is a successful hybrid op. DG operates as both its own sort of 'cult' and is carrying out an ongoing conspiracy. Our excuse for acting in many ways like our very enemies? We are the "good" guys. We know whats best for the world. We have to fight fire with fire. Our own "evil" actions are perfectly justified by our consciences because we know we're "right."

All that being said, personally I love it. Unconsciously as players and keepers it seems we have developed not only the paranoia that goes with this genre but the mindset that goes with many of our real-life counterparts.

I find that a very interesting development.

From: "Jimmie Bise, Jr."

Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 11:41:57 -0400

>  *All that being said, personally I love it. Unconsciously as players and keepers it seems we have developed not only the paranoia that goes with this genre but the mindset that goes with many of our real-life counterparts. I find that a very interesting development.*
>
>

I'm not sure that I find this conclusion interesting as much as I find it proper. Of course we see ourselves as right. Of course we see the actions we take in pursuit of our goals as correct. It would be insanity to see ourselves as anything but right.

If a nation, or people, or even an organization wishes to survive at all, it must pursue its own best interests. How it pursues that depends on a number of things: the risks it believes it faces, the number of enemies it sees opposing it, how vigorously it believes what it does, etc. The use of violence is, regardless of how others might despise it, the most effective means of impressing itself on others that a nation, or in many cases, an organization like DG has. If DG sees itself to be in a fight for the very survival of the human race, then of course it will use force, supercede any law or regulation, and take any other means it has to meet that end. That's what humans do. That's what \*we\* do, players or keepers.

It's not as if we've developed these mindsets because of DG, it's because we're human beings, and that's what human beings do. It's not a new development.

From: ScottSaylo

Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 12:00:36 EDT

<<  If a nation, or people, or even an organization wishes to survive at all, it must pursue its own best interests. How it pursues that depends on a number of things: the risks it believes it faces, the number of enemies it sees opposing it, how vigorously it believes what it does, etc. >>

Absolutely, and it is the cultists insanity that they can no longer perceive what is in the best interests of, community, nation, humanity. They see only the aggrandizement of themselves through Nyarlathotep or Hastur, or Shub Niggurath that make them INhuman, and for that reason DG is there to interfere with THEIR agenda. The fulfillment of that agenda poses as much threat to order as its very revelation to society at large. here is the dichotomy for the players! They are part of a conspiracy. Lots of conspiracies consider themselves altruistic. Only a very few may truly be. Trying to keep the white hat ain't easy for humans, and it shouldn't be easy for characters either.

Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 18:20:33 +0200

From: Davide Mana

Greetings some more.

Dave K invoked hipocrisy and wrote

> *DG is filled with the same "cold war mentality" that has been around for centuries. We feel that we have the moral "high ground" because we are "right" and/or "good." That's a dangerous philosophical ground to tread upon, but still we feel we have the justification. Not too many governments, religions or whatever have an oppression free background, but when we are members of them, we tend to gloss those points over.*
>
>

A short and brutal "talk for yourself" might be in order, but this is not a flame war and we are not talking real life ;>

The opposite of Dave's idea, now, was exactly the point I was trying to cover in my previous post - everyone has the responsibility of staring the past in the face, taking the good and the bad together in his evaluation, and afterwards act according to conscience. And this independently of what past you are looking at - be it a long bloodsoaked history like the Catholics share (together with any other major religion or lack thereof, I must add), any war or conflict, a string of personal failures \_or\_ successes, or a particularly bad New Year's Eve party.

Same goes for DG - as it was discussed at lenght while the MiB was with us together with his 9mm Philosophy (check the Cave for details), Delta Green is not a bunch of trigger-happy, gung-ho simpletons saving the world the John Wayne way and what the heck for the rest. This is an oversimplistic view.

I still hold that DG agents that made it through a pair of missions without losing it are forced to take everything into account. The reason why DG simulations don't turn into angstfest is because we're backed by Pagan (that notoriously enjoys a good laugh) and not by the Albino Fleabag.

But rest assured that a good DG agent, the way I see and play it (and I guess I'm not the only one), has a lot of things chewing on his or her conscience.

This said, DG agents do their bit. The alternatives are pretty bleak.

Is that hipocrisy?

> *DG is no different, their view is just somewhat larger. We regularly talk on the list about the best ways to circumvent the constitution. We oppress peoples and information. We killed scores at Waco on flimsy pretenses of the Mythos and are view is that it is a successful hybrid op. DG operates as both its own sort of 'cult' and is carrying out an ongoing conspiracy. Our excuse for acting in many ways like our very enemies? We are the "good" guys. We know whats best for the world. We have to fight fire with fire. Our own "evil" actions are perfectly justified by our consciences because we know we're "right."*
>
>

So what?

Date: 13 May 99 17:41:43 +0100

From: Peter Devlin

Ah, Dave has indeed opened a large can of cthonians. My takes on this discussion:

(1) In a gaming context TOO MUCH ambiguity can be bad. A simple example would be the nice, friendly, charitable Escoteric Order of Dagon doing good for those down and out refugees who live on the beach. Sure, this kind of juxtaposition throws PCs into a dilemma good for roleplaying but I'd argue it is also bad for long term roleplaying if it occurs too frequently.

If PCs see cultists as genuine, committed good guys and see that the End Times are coming, then the GM has to bear the responsibility when those PCs exercise logic and decide to hang up their monster-hunting tools to join the cults. The GM has effectively 'told' the PCs that they are the bad guys, and contrary to popular belief I think most players prefer wearing white hats. As Davide Mana says, when the shite hits you have to take sides. The GM should want Delta Green field agents (optionally with a conscience), not GOO loving cultists.

Having said all that, a little moral ambiguity can go a long way...

Might I suggest that the best use for this idea in a gaming context is to set up your agents for a looong fall. One possible approach would be to have PCs acting as DG agents for say up to a dozen missions then lead them to the realisation that they are not the good guys, they are actually working for MJ12. Eventually let them hook up with DG proper, doing similar work, but only after a suitable scenario.

The pivotal scenario could perhaps involve a non-violent public cult to which many red herrings point, taking the heat for the real Cultists. Agents do the right (sic) thing and kill many of those cultist bank managers, nurses, charity workers et al. Authorities investigate and when evidence points to PCs they have no choice but to prosecute. The media gets involved. There is big show trial. The PCs either go down for umpty years hard labour or go on the run. Nice change of pace for the campaign and the players get a dose of moral ambiguity, enough to let them adjust their PCs mindsets and decide if they really are the good guys or bad guys, do they give a f\*\*k or do they just want to live a closeted life and pretend the world isn't going to hell in a hearse.

(2) Davide's Fascist example is first class. Cooperation, even by doing nothing, with forces inimical to humans (e.g. Nazis who want the best for Aryans but not Jews) is cooperation with the enemy. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution.

If I am convinced that alien spawn will ultimately destroy the world, even if they are, by some cosmic definition, the so-called good guys who rightfully own my planet, I will go down fighting with my last breath. Ultimate ideas of good and evil don't matter when there is a tentacled something out to suck your bone marrow before moving on to your family, friends, neighbours and downtown Glasgow.

(3) Ultimately the GOO cannot be labelled with human concepts such as good or evil. The only thing we know is that good for GOO = bad for humanity and that is how humans should see good and evil in human context (unless you prefer the Derleth GOO vs. GOO concepts or you have Deep One blood in you). Are your agents fighting for humanity or not?

I think this will thread will provoke much more discussion so I'm back to lurking to see what happens.

From: ScottSaylo

Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 14:55:29 EDT

Ah campaigns with the bad guys as PC's love'em. Did you check out UO's Ithaqua campaign where all the players were cultists trying to establish themselves as the new leader after the murder of the priest? Good writing!

From: "Doug Streifel"

Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 14:06:28 PDT

Trying for that second pension. :)

We seem to be forgetting that we don't really know what it is that the Outer Gods are planning on doing when the stars come right, after all. Signs point to the fact that they're going to wipe us all out, and obviously those cultists need a good whacking around, but what if it turns out that the OG's just want to come down here and eradicate some odd species of Fruit Fly? Or stranger, they want to ressurect the Dodo? For that matter, the extinction of the Dodo could be the reason why they're pissed at us in the first place, if indeed they are.

Hey, maybe the OGs, GOOs, and other assorted nasties are just conspiring to play one hell of an april-fool's day trick on the Mi-Go.

From: Mark McFadden

Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 17:20:46 EDT

> *3) You can give up utterly and let it make the rules*
>
>

> *Camus said Sisyphus would come to love his rock*
>
>

Mark, I think you're trivialising here a little bit. Surely giving up utterly would mean that Sisyphus would simply give up in despair. By taking up the struggle with life (i.e. pushing his rock) he finds meaning in an otherwise meaningless existence.

> *In an Absurd universe, all you have is your style.*
>
>

....and your struggle.  >>

My point is that seeing life as consisting solely of pushing that rock IS giving up. The real struggle with life is not pushing a damn rock uphill until it inevitably rolls down and you have to start over. The real struggle is to look at the situation, which in Sisyphus' case is:

1) Must push rock uphill because that's what he was condemned to do

2) He will never get to the top of that damned hill

3) If he stops pushing:

a) The rock rolls downhill and he must start over

b) Furies will flay him until he starts pushing the rock again

and do something about it. Or at least try.

If he chooses to accept that situation as it is, if he decides that loving this situation will give meaning to a meaningless existence, I feel that he is giving up. And he is kidding himself if he thinks that he has given any meaning to his life.

Don't look at me like that, Camus chose the metaphor, I'm just stepping back and looking at the big picture.

Camus felt that existence was objectively meaningless, but you could create meaning from the subjective. It's a lie, but a comforting one.

I prefer to Improvise, Adapt and Overcome. It's what I do, and I don't give a shite if it has no meaning. I yam what I yam.

I've got much more time for philosophy now. I quit pushing that f\*\*kin' rock and learned to ignore flaying. The secret is not to care. Word has it that Orpheus found a way out, I think I'll swing by and see if Tantalus wants to do lunch.

From: Mark McFadden

Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 17:33:19 EDT

<< But rest assured that a good DG agent, the way I see and play it (and I guess I'm not the only one), has a lot of things chewing on his or her conscience.

This said, DG agents do their bit.

The alternatives are pretty bleak.

Is that hipocrisy? >>

It's all there in "What Is Delta Green?"

When you have accepted the doctrine that the end justifies the means, you have several ways to integrate it into your life:

1) Don't look at it too closely

"Dammit, it's Us versus Them. We're Good, they're Evil, what's the problem?"

2) Rationalize it

"Bottomline, it's life or death. You can't blame a drowning man for his actions."

3) Make excuses/counteraccusations

"They started it."

4) Get philosophical

"I don't deny that my actions are evil. But they must be done. I accept that responsibility so the innocent won't suffer."

Or, you can be a complete sociopath, and just use these as your excuse.

My personal moral compass is:

If they made a movie about this, would I be the hero?

Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 14:34:53 -0700

From: Richard Pace

Peter Devlin wrote:

>
>
>
>

> *. The GM should want Delta Green field agents (optionally with a conscience), not GOO loving cultists.*
>
>

Many years ago I ran a mini-campaign (4-5 sessions) where the PCs were cultists. Although they were actually the leaders of each of their respective cults. The gimme was that there were a few books to be had and artifacts to be obtained to summon a God. You guessed it; cult warfare!

Each player (there were five) had twelve disciples with a reasonable financial resource pool to draw upon. They also had a headquarters, a few vehicles and some local and state connections. Each player had three spells to start (obtained from fragments of forbidden books and scrolls) and 30 + their EDU in Mythos % to start. Turns were measured in weeks and combat was a bastardization of CoC and Risk. Azathoth's cult got wiped out after a few months, the survivors joined up with the Cthulhu cult (IIRC). To keep the Azathoth player busy I let him run a small group of standard investigators in their attempt to stop the other players' cults.

The good guys (investigators) ended up winning when three groups of them managed to destroy the materials the cults were going to use to summon their respective gods.

From: Dave K

Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 17:59:58 EDT

Jimmie wrote:

<<It's not as if we've developed these mindsets because of DG, it's because we're human beings, and that's what human beings do. It's not a new development.>>

-The point that I was making was that I found it an interesting development how much we as players or keepers in a Fictional setting have taken on such a real world view carried by our true life counterparts. If you talk to members of the same organizations that Dg portrays or read their stories or whatever, we portray many of their mindsets accurately. I find this interesting, from a psychological viewpoint, that i know i didn't realize in myself, or in the list discussions before putting it down. It started really invoking images of DG agents in sort of Oliver North sort of light that I found interesting. it may not be a new development in humans, but I guess seeing art imitate life in this fashion, i found it neat.

And Davide wrote:

<<A short and brutal "talk for yourself" might be in order, but this is not a flame war and we are not talking real life ;> >>

Don't worry, I have included myself in this rank :)

<<The opposite of Dave's idea, now, was exactly the point I was trying to cover in my previous post - everyone has the responsibility of staring the past in the face, taking the good and the bad together in his evaluation, and afterwards act according to conscience.

And this independently of what past you are looking at - be it a long bloodsoaked history like the Catholics share (together with any other major religion or lack thereof, I must add), any war or conflict, a string of personal failures \_or\_ successes, or a particularly bad New Year's Eve party. (rest of excellent counter-points snipped) >>

Actually, the point you bring up is opposite of what I'm saying. I believe that DG agents are responsible for their actions and have that moral conscience to deal with. My point on hypocrasy was first direct to the DG organization as a whole, as it appears to have taken on that mentality of DG right or wrong. Again, I find the mindset interesting in that it mirrors what would really be its views if it really existed. It is not an angst-filled organization, but professionals who do what it takes to get done what it considers "right." It is at least an amoral organization, willing to barter much to hold back the mythos. The conscience must be carried individually by its members. DG should be a (and probably is in most campaigns) a three-dimensional entity. Its members will add a variety of experiences and personalities. It may have some John Wayne types, some academics, some whatever. Some may be depressed, some angst-filled, some may relish their job. To humans, they are in many respects heroes, yes, but their hands still are not completely clean. Do their ends justify their means? That's up to each agent to decide. This setting provides a great view of a shadowy world, both in the aspects of the intelligence/LEO/military connections, and in the mythos. Its this not wearing of the white hat that makes it so appealing.

Finally, the original point of making cultists "right" was the point that was brought up of making them three-dimensional and as food for thought. Again, I'm not advocating making the cultists the heroes, just human. Not every cult has to be bent on some mission of world conquest or destruction. In the grand scheme, yes, they may be fools, but a look at expanding what they are and fleshing them out can add to the setting. Should groups like  the Karotechia be humanized? personally, I feel very strongly that they shouldn't be. There needs to be little ambiguity when dealing with them or similar groups. I just feel that every group shouldn't be a mirror of those sorts of groups with just a little tweaking for color. This provides a good clash of ideals within the game. yes, too much is bad, but too little and you are playing a James Bond versus the Mythos setting. Personally, I feel that giving the cultists the occasional moral "high ground" can bring in a new element and add a little bit of richness to the background (even if our agents blow them away right after that).

Well, enough of an already too long rant,

From: "Doug Streifel"

Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 15:08:40 PDT

>Sure beats discussing gun calibres... ;>

I don't know about that. :)

Seriously, it's all a matter of perception. Beauty being in the eye of the beholder, and all that crap. Strange that beauty should be used in a sentence referring to OGs and GOOs.

Human beings are severely limited in that they have great difficulty comprehending things that are fundamentally different from what they've experienced. Sure, you can imagine what it's like to get shot, or stabbed, because you've had sensations of pain before. Now, with that in mind, try to picture five-dimensional space. Go ahead, picture those other two dimensions. Can't do it, can you? It just gets translated as 3d images, no matter what you think. It's the same thing with the motivations of the OGs and GOOs. They have drive, and it makes sense to them. Hell, it makes sense to anyone else other than humans, probably. It's just us that can't comprehend it. THAT DOESN'T MEAN I THINK THE OGs ARE GOOD! Thank you Alphonse, put back my pension plan. :) Like was said by someone else, Good and Evil are human concepts. Think about it, the Outer Gods may have as much difficulty understanding Good and Evil as we do understanding their motives.

Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 18:46:35 -0400

From: BRUCE BALLON

I suppose one way you get gray-area cultists can be where the cultists are unwilling. i.e. the town that has a mine with a dormant cthulhoid entity sitting down the nearby mine-shaft. The thing exacts a sacrifice every year, and if it isn't fed..well, it comes and gets its own dinner..and then it takes extra snacks. The people form a small cult 'worshipping' the thing in fear, and often try to catch a hobo or drifter to feed the thing, rather than give up one of the community.

The worshippers of the Lliogor also don't seem to be a happy lot.

As for the OG and GOO, HPL's conception is they don't give a damn about humanity. Good ol' Nye likes to play with them, but the world will be cleared not to eliminate humanity as a goal, but as they happen to be in the way. Are the dreams of Cthulhu really totalk to worshippers, or are the demented followers tapping into the dreams, and in their SANless state, interpeting the messages as personal? Is learning a spell from a Great Old One an actaul gift, or a byproduct of opening a frail human mind to the cosmic alieness of these entities? Beats me. I assume when Cthulhu gets out, people like Carl Stanford will be fried like the rest... so, is it an intrinsic part of being a GOO follower a nihilistic death cult mentality? Even if it is so, the GOO probably didn't make it so, but the human minds crafted it into that form.... GOOs and OGs seem to get to amthropmorphized sometimes... hell if mi-go think alien-like..a GOO should be even more oddball to understand... and the OG..well, the Necronomicon even says Cthulhu himself (itself) only sees them dimly..perhaps they are as alien to Cthulhu as Cthulhu is to us..heck, he is their high priest (this all being from the quatation from the Nec in The Dunwich Horror).. of course, whats Abdul Know? He is a human after all.

From: Shane Ivey

Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 22:03:55 EDT

<<But rest assured that a good DG agent, the way I see and play it (and I guess I'm not the only one), has a lot of things chewing on his or her conscience.>>

If they don't, the Keeper and players aren't working hard enough--or getting all that they can get out of the game. It gets back to the basics: what will you give up to protect what you have? Delta Green is a sacrifice of morality. The best violate their own ideals and justice for a larger crisis, or at least the appearance of a larger crisis, or, at worst, no crisis at all beyond faulty intelligence or the inevitable misjudgements of terror.

<<Ok, I'm confused. It seems that some of the big, baddies in the Mythos represent 'primal forces' of the universe. i.e. Azatoth is into nuclear forces, Shub-Niggurath into wierd animal/plant life, ect ect. Even Cthuluthu is kinda into the sea and what oozes around down there. So where does the King In Yellow fit into all of this? Does Hastur represent a particular idea? I also seem to remember reading somewhere about the lligor serving Hastur in some capacity but I might be wrong about that.>>

Cthulhu can only be associated with the sea in that he's stuck underneath it and his spawn are vaguely aquatic in comparison with Earthly life. The water itself does not empower Cthulhu in any way; in fact, it cuts off his psychic reach. Cthulhu does not seem related in Lovecraft's tales to anything universal; as Bruce pointed out, Cthulhu is, at best, "high priest" to the Outer Gods, not on par with any of them.

My Encyclopaedia Cthulhanica is squirrelled into a box at the moment as I replace my bookcases, but I don't recall any association between the lloigor and Hastur; they have been most strongly associated with Ghathanathoa and sunken Mu.

As for Hastur... Well, DG: COUNTDOWN will be out soon, very soon, I'm sure of it!

From: Clairr O'Connor

Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 12:17:42 +0100

> *Should groups like the Karotechia be humanized? personally, I feel very strongly that they shouldn't be. There needs to be little ambiguity when dealing with them or similar groups.*
>
>

Hm....why do you think that ? I'm not defending Karotechia (\*waves Lefty Anarchist Union Card\*), I'm just staying that they are human. When I sit down and think about Nazis (and other morally reprehensible groups), one thing that springs to mind was a guy I knew in school called Ray. Ray was a self-proclaimed fascist who was a bit touched (he was once caught in the guys john trying to urinate on the ceiling...I rest my case). He came into school wearing "Adolf Hitler European Tour '39-'45" t-shirts. He would give my dutch jewish history teacher shite about the holocaust never happening and verbally abused the schools only openly gay pupil.

That said, Ray's best friend took his head off with a shotgun the year before. He also pulled me out from under a car and helped the sally army out one night a week serving meals on wheels to the homeless.

What I'm saying is that if you want to try and address a real issue of evil in your games....and I'm not sure I do, you can't ignore the humanity of evil. Good people can do bad things, and vice versa.

P.S. On the sisyphus thing...I think you're twisting the metaphor. From what I can make out, the rock and hill are a metaphor for life. For the purposes of argument, escape isn't a possibility, unless you count some form of suiside.

From: Dave K

Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 23:27:35 EDT

Current devil advocation aside, I think that we as humans are doomed to place the GOOs/OGs into the evil category. They are beyond this concept, but we have to deal with them in our perception. They are no more or less "evil" amongst themselves, than we humans are amongst ourselves. We as the lesser beings are doomed to view them as oppressors.

Even our view of the Endtimes is skewed to a human bend. As it is detailing the end of us, it has to be. The GOOs don't have some sort of Mein Kampf detailing our demise, it is humans who are writing their perceptions down that detail this. The GOOs don't want us dead, they are merely going through another cycle of their existence. We are the that have infested their summer home while they were away on vacation, nothing more. They feel the same way about clearing out "nests" of us as we feel about lesser bugs. The way I see it, the destruction of the Endtimes isn't a calculated move to rid the planet of us, we just happen to be in the way. Millions will die in the natural disasters that engulf the globe. Millions more will probably be driven mad by the psychic onslaught of the awakened GOOs. Our society will be destroyed and our cities smashed, not because of the GOOs wanting us dead, but because we are in the way of their "construction projects" and other affairs.

In a gross oversimplification, the GOOs really are us, evolved considerably. They may be living in 5 dimensions, wondering about the 6th and 7th, the way we theorize about the 4th. They wage their wars for their own ends and carry out their own agendas. Just like we don't really think about the bugs in our backyards, why should they. Some of those bugs (us) want to do some good for them, fine. others ignore them, it doesn't matter either. Get in the way and you get squashed, no thought or remorse to it. When the Endtimes come, I don't see all mankind being wiped out in one swoop.

As I said, billions will die as they are just in the way. Many could escape to outer space, survival retreats or whatever. The GOOs won't care enough to hunt down a few pests. Others may end up in Deep one zoos or breeding parks, mi-go experiment outposts, and so on. The final death of mankind probably won't even be an active squashing by the GOOs but the eventual de-evolution of the race into something base that Lovecraft wrote about.

The OGs, merely represent cosmic principles. Most of them could care even less than the GOOs about us. Many are mindless and are the epitome of that primal chaos of the universe. It is us that tend to intrude in their realm, not the other way around. Consider this possibility: Nyarlahotep is the most "human" seeming of the OGs. He tends to also act in the way that we perceive as "evil" by human standards. What if his true purpose is to "right the wrong" that humans and other races are imposing on the universe. we as humans are attempting to alter the true reality and impose order in the chaos. Maybe that makes us a threat to the cosmic order. Nyarlahotep is the arm of that primal chaos, manifest to keep the universe "right." we have to view his actions as "evil" by human standards, as he is corrupting us. By his POV, he is protecting the concepts of the universe and using the cleverest weapon of all against us, ourselves. He made of given us a push but we went to him willingly, so why not achieve his goal and give us "what we want?" He doesn't consider his actions any more evil than DG does for fighting him.

Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 13:04:05 GMT

From: "Fco. Javier Rubio"

> *GOOs and OGs seem to get to amthropmorphized sometimes... hell if mi-go think alien-like..a GOO should be even more oddball to understand... and the OG..well, the Necronomicon even says Cthulhu himself (itself) only sees them dimly..perhaps they are as alien to Cthulhu as Cthulhu is to us..heck, he is their high priest (this all being from the quatation from the Nec in The Dunwich Horror).. of course, whats Abdul Know? He is a human after all.*
>
>

---And this makes me think:

a) What is the Mythos percentage for a 'common' Deep One or Ghoul? (Specially if we talk about Ghoul-converted Human beings, what the heck can they know about what's behind the whole of this?)

b) Does a Deep One loses SAN for seeing a Ghoul? (I mean, after all i am just a poor Deep One, respected in my community, living w/ my 'wife and children'(spores?) , those Human thingies are so annoying (specially the Ones w/ the Big Guns and shouting), and I go to worship Cthulhu every Sunday... but more or less everything fits in a coherent plan.)

...still losing SAN...

Editor's Note: the discussion of Alien Sanity is carried out in another document

Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 09:29:33 -0400

From: Jeff Ewing

> *>Sure beats discussing gun calibres... ;>*
>
>

> *I don't know about that. :) Seriously, it's all a matter of perception. Beauty being in the eye of the beholder, and all that crap. Strange that beauty should be used in a sentence referring to OGs and GOOs.*
>
>

Surely, what's disturbing about beauty is that it has no moral quality? This was brought home rather forcefully to me during the Oakland hills fire (on my Sunday CoC day, no less). The flames and smoke, especially after dark had a spectacular, eerie beauty; at the same time I knew that people were dying and losing everything they owned.

From: ScottSaylo

Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 09:50:24 EDT

In a message dated 5/14/99 6:29:59 AM EST, spire@indigo.ie writes:

<< What I'm saying is that if you want to try and address a real issue of evil in your games.... and I'm not sure I do, you can't ignore the humanity of evil. Good people can do bad things, and vice versa. >>

Very astute and evident of hard-won personal knowledge. The nature of evil is the nature of humanity. Animals are not evil whatever they do because they do not make MORAL choices. They run on instinct. Humans do too, but they have this pesky self-monitor we call our "conscience". Those humans who do not have that inner monitor are sociopaths and operate on an "inhuman" level. Cultists (those who have gone "rond the bend" completely are truly no longer human in their moral outlook (and inlook). In this respect the SAN system in the game is really very elegant.

From: Dave K.

Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 11:06:06 EDT

<< Very astute and evident of hard-won personal knowledge. The nature of evil is the nature of humanity. Animals are not evil whatever they do because they do not make MORAL choices. They run on instinct. Humans do too, but they have this pesky self-monitor we call our "conscience". Those humans who do not have that inner monitor are sociopaths and operate on an "inhuman" level. Cultists (those who have gone "rond the bend" completely are truly no longer human in their moral outlook (and inlook). In this respect the SAN system in the game is really very elegant. >>

Actually, I feel that the above points (and many others that came across) are kind of the point I was trying to get across when I threw the thread out. In my DG game, the personal preference we have is a combination of that moral ambiguity, the damned no matter what you do in one way or another theme. We also like the mythos bashing, white-hat wearing side. both can exist side by side, we've done it. Throw my devil's advocate side to the wind for a moment, I truly agree that many of the cults and their members deserve whatever justice can be dealt out to them. I also believe that DG does have the best interests of mankind in its heart. When i played devil's advocate, i wasn't attempting to belittle that fight, but instead say, what if we looked at it from the other side. I believe that the Karotechia as an organization is evil (and since we are dealing with "humans", I feel we can use a moral label). Again, that doesn't mean ever member of that organization has to be evil. That's exactly the moral dichotomy I like to work in. The organization should have a varied membership (I personally liked the EH thread from a while back about Skorenzy turning on the group and plan to "borrow" that one for myself). That was what I was getting at when the idea popped up. What if not all the cultist were bad? Maybe you blow them away, maybe you deal with them, or whatever.

I felt that it was an idea that could add some depth to our enemies in play.

The same could be said for what I said about DG. The agency, as has been discussed on the list, is at least amoral. The component pieces of that organization aren't necessarily so. The members of this group should be just as varied behind a common goal. There may be members of DG who are so detached as to be mirrors of the very enemies they fight, trading atrocity for atrocity. Others may be in some form of moral grey area, to one degree or another. Some mey be crooked, manipulating DG for their own gain. They hide behind an overall moral justification that some may have more claim to than others.

I feel, INHO, that a group like the Karotechia or NWI provides great opportunity for that white-hat mentality. As the DG book says, bashing nazis is always a good thing. You may or may not choose to complicate the issue with an additional moral to the story or sympathetic NPC. Sometimes it adds, but yes, too much will drag the game down. Other cases might not be as clear. One that I'm getting ready to spring on my players soon is the case of a resurgence of Native American groups, such as AIM. They are attempting to recapture their lost heritage and tribal ways. Unfortunately, those tribal ways have elements of the mythos tied to them. Some of the indian gods are manifestations of OGs/GOOs. The Native Americans don't see mythos, they see their ancient ways. The shamans and tribal elders aren't insane wizards but DG sees it a different way. The agents are caught in the middle with some choices to make. I think it will be interesting to see what they do.

From: Mark McFadden

Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 20:30:00 EDT

<< P.S. On the sisyphus thing...I think you're twisting the metaphor. From what I can make out, the rock and hill are a metaphor for life. For the purposes of argument, escape isn't a possibility, unless you count some form of suicide. >>

I understand the metaphor, and when I first read the essay I dutifully told the professor what he wanted to hear. I just don't agree with the arguments, the parameters or the conclusion. Just because Camus couldn't think of a way out doesn't mean that I can't. After all, he was French and consequently hardwired to quit and rationalize. I'm not.

If the metaphor leaves itself open to twisting, it's time for a better metaphor.

Incidentally, this might seem like wasted bandwidth, but Camus' essay cuts right to the heart of the "Why does DG do what it does?" thread. Sorry if anyone feels left out of the pedantry.

Mark McFadden - Equine vocal training a specialty

From: Dave K

Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 22:05:37 EDT

Mark wrote:

<< I understand the metaphor, and when I first read the essay I dutifully told the professor what he wanted to hear. I just don't agree with the arguments, the parameters or the conclusion. Just because Camus couldn't think of a way out doesn't mean that I can't. After all, he was French and consequently hardwired to quit and rationalize. I'm not. If the metaphor leaves itself open to twisting, it's time for a better metaphor.>>

Well of course, he acted in such a "French" way. The French it is well known are the GOOs first experiment in making mankind base and as they are...Maybe i shouldn't be playing devil's advocate after all :). And let's not even get started on that colony to the north consisting of French-Canadians....

From: ScottSaylo

Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 23:34:25 EDT

<< Incidentally, this might seem like wasted bandwidth, but Camus' essay cuts right to the heart of the "Why does DG do what it does?" thread. Sorry if anyone feels left out of the pedantry. >>

Camus is a true thinking man's Sartre. Camus and Kirkengaard are the real existentialists by a long shot. Sartre was more like Andy Warhol = existentialism as a fashion statement with the rather brilliant exception of his short story "The Wall". The best novel by CAmus has to be  "The Plague"

From: "David Farnell"

Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 13:48:15 +0900

> *Surely, what's disturbing about beauty is that it has no moral quality?*
>
>

Sounds like something Oscar Wilde would say...now there's someone out of history I would love to have a dinner conversation with.

The use of beauty mixed with horror is verrrry Lovecraftian, and I think another essential in our simulations. I had a player who, in her character's past, had a blank spot in her memory of when she was diving and her lover was killed. All she could remember was the description of the Deep One's eyes from Tynes' "My Father's Son." Take a look at it again on the DG website. Haunting. Later, she would have discovered the truth behind that image and remembered the Deep Ones ripping her lover to shreds--but lucky for her, she moved to Germany before we could get that far. Too bad. Anyway, the juxtaposition of beauty and horror is common, but something we try to deny normally, which makes the impact greater. But don't do it too often, or the impact will be lessened.

Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 22:05:47 -0700

From: Richard Pace

> *Just because Camus couldn't think of a way out doesn't mean that I can't. After all, he was French and consequently hardwired to quit and rationalize.*
>
>

I thought the French were hardwired to surrender and smell like garlic . . .

> *Incidentally, this might seem like wasted bandwidth, but Camus' essay cuts right to the heart of the "Why does DG do what it does?" thread. Sorry if anyone feels left out of the pedantry.*
>
>

Considering that many government agents have a certain degree of higher learning discussions about philosophy vis a vis DGs actions and existence are necessary to enhance the simulation.

Your FBI agent with a minor in 20th century philosophers demands it!

From: "Jimmie Bise, Jr."

Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 09:01:40 -0400

> *the juxtaposition of beauty and horror is common, but something we try to deny normally, which makes the impact greater. But don't do it too often, or the impact will be lessened.*
>
>

Excellent stuff, man! I would also toss in that the Biblical tale of Lucifer (both before his Fall and afterwards) describes him as an "Angel of Light", the most beautiful and musical of all the angels, and that even in his guise as Satan, Lucifer uses beauty to trap and damn unwary people.

Beauty has always been a place where untold evil could lurk right behind the surface, and many modern religions warn that beauty is fleeting and can very often be deceitful. I think that, in times past, more Puritanical mindsets tried to make beauty a thing of evil itself, either as a tool for Evil, or as it's most visible hallmark, but I'm not exactly sure about that.

Just more grist for the mill.

Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 10:03:29 -0400

From: Steven Kaye

> *Just because Camus couldn't think of a way out doesn't mean that I can't. After all, he was French and consequently hardwired to quit and rationalize.*
>
>

Hey now, hardly fair considering "Sisyphus" is explicitly about refusing to commit suicide in the face of an unbearable existence.

> *Incidentally, this might seem like wasted bandwidth, but Camus' essay cuts right to the heart of the "Why does DG do what it does?" thread. Sorry if anyone feels left out of the pedantry.*
>
>

Actually, I've been enjoying this discussion a lot. And for people who want to become Insta-Pedants (TM), check out the following site on existentialism:

http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri/exist.html

http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri/camus.html deals specifically with Camus

To bring my pedantry back to Delta Green for a minute, one of my favorite NPCs in the DELTA GREEN book is Agent Matthew, Emil Furst. He cooperates with Delta Green on his terms, and is more concerned with helping victims of the Mythos than fighting cultists. One of the reasons I like the Delta Green setting is that it allows for "cowboy cells," traditional investigators (friendlies and research-oriented cells), and a variety of character types.

In moral terms, I see a kinship between DELTA GREEN and UNKNOWN ARMIES - both games ask "What will you risk to change the world?"

Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 16:55:14 +0200

From: Davide Mana

SuperDave wrote...

> *Surely, what's disturbing about beauty is that it has no moral quality?*
>
>

> *Sounds like something Oscar Wilde would say...now there's someone out of history I would love to have a dinner conversation with.*
>
>

>  *The use of beauty mixed with horror is verrrry Lovecraftian, and I think another essential in our simulations.*
>
>

[massive snippage]

Up next comes eroticism - a field in which HPL was a little weak. Anyone interested in the subject is referred to the already mentioned and highly underrated "Shambleau", by C.L. Moore.

Go find a copy and read it.

[I might add that I've put up a nice CoC adaptation of the critter in that story on my personal web page, but that would turn this whole mail in a plug, so I won't]

From: Mark McFadden

Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 03:49:17 EDT

<< The use of beauty mixed with horror is verrrry Lovecraftian, and I think another essential in our simulations. >>

Remember the climax of Raiders of the Lost Ark? The bad guy is looking into the formless center of the Ark, unblinking and helpless shrieking "It's beautiful! It's beautiful!" before he is shriveled by the sight.

Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 10:49:32 -1000

From: Jay Dugger

While this discussion gets my vote for "Best Recent Thread," I suggest we've neglected how to use this theme in stories. The DG setting lends itself to moral ambiguity, and my gaming group has learned this the hard way.

For example, during "Convergence" (Delta Green, pg. 180) PCs found Jane Allen. They already knew about protomatter in Groversville, and one of them had already had Mi-Go surgery. They debated extensively before murdering Jane Allen, but at no point did ever consider letting her live. They argued about \_how\_ to kill her. The abducted PC, FBI Special Agent Raskalnikov, felt an uncomfortable parallel between Allen's situation and her own. Would her follow agents, having killed once for the greater good, kill her? They didn't, and SA Raskalnikov went on to save the group from a protomatter spawn despite serious injuries.

In our current adventure, "A Cult of One," (Secrets, pg. 31) SA Raskalnikov (temporarily an NPC) kidnapped a 12-year old girl and beat her father into unconsciousness. The other PCs met the girl's parent. He now knows of their connection to Special Agent R. If his daughter dies during the adventure, how will he react? Will the PCs tell him? If so, what should they say? Even if father and child are reunited, there remains a kidnapping charge against SA Raskalnikov. Will she have the courage to face the parent and ask his forgiveness? If not, will a cooperative doctor fake her death?

"Convergence" confronted my players with a decision between expediency and mercy. "A Cult of One" forces them to choose between cowardice and deceit. As posted earlier on the list, morality seems to slip away faster than sanity in this, our favored game world. Keepers, work such contrasts and selections into your storylines. Allow your players to feel they chose as best they could; without that sensation, the experience remains unresolved. However, avoid catharsis. Emotional purging works against nihilistic character of Cthulhu Mythos. Let players walk away with a nugget of unease in their bellies.

From: Mark McFadden

Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 19:19:52 EDT

<< Hey now, hardly fair considering "Sisyphus" is explicitly about refusing to commit suicide in the face of an unbearable existence.>>

You got me, I was being cute rather than completely honest.

One measure of the power Camus' essay has is the fact that I read it in 1976 and I'm still wrestling with it. You see, I had the same arguments with the same situation as Camus, but I reached a different compromise. Before bipolar disorders, before Lithium treatment, before "mood swings," there was a condition known as manic depression. I've got it. It turns out that some kink in the DNA has left me with a low level of lithium. This effects things like serotonin production, and anyone who has been reading the literature knows how many behavioral patterns serotonin effects. Low serotonin levels are found consistently in junkies and suicides and a lot of other desperate people.

The pattern in my family (now that we know what we're looking for) is: a slightly hyperactive youth with periods of manic behavior, depressions start to manifest in adolescence, the cycles even out through the twenties, and the manic periods get rare and the depressions become unbearable in the thirties.

I guess I'm lucky, by the time the really horrible clinical depressions kicked in, even American HMOs recognized lithium treatment, and I was spared a lot of grief.

I take my lithium in the morning and with dinner. 10$US a month. It's not an antidepressant or mood elevator, it's just maintaining my chemical balance. I now have the same lithium levels as you guys. If it's depressing, I feel depressed, and when it's not, I don't. Like you guys. From my POV, weird.

As Ray Davies wrote:

"It's like another world

being here with you

It's quite a trip for me

so this is reality"

So, everything worked out all right.

But prior to Better Living Thru Chemistry, I had a heap of depressions, and later a couple of full on clinical depressions. Here's the difference: when you are severely depressed you contemplate suicide, when you are clinically depressed you doubt death would make it go away.

Everyone in class was a bit shocked at how personally I was taking Camus' essay. Just like another class thought I was making a big deal out of Hamlet's "To be or not to be" soliloquy.

What can I say? I've spent some nights in Chapel Per ilous and I been to Chinatown. I have gone to Room 101 and it wasn't THAT bad. Very educational, glad I came out the other side. And I do not love Big Brother or that f\*\*kin' rock.

As always, your mileage may vary.

> *Actually, I've been enjoying this discussion a lot. And for people who want to become Insta-Pedants (TM), check out the following site on existentialism:*
>
>

http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri/exist.html

http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri/camus.html deals specifically with Camus >>

If you think the Endtimes are inevitable, you've got to wonder why DG bothers to do anything.

I found the best use for philosophy was to interact with it. The existentialists have given me many hours of wrestling time, and have helped me figure out what I think about some issues. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we disagree, but in the process I learned what \*I\* think.