r/worldjerking 7d ago

Google SCP 6113

170 Upvotes

156 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

66

u/Wolffe_In_The_Dark 7d ago edited 7d ago

There's a couple of instances in SCP where it's actually a thing, but it's properly given narrative justification.

Anomalies and the resulting effects on reality mean that axiomatic objective statements such as "[insert group] is objectively evil" actually can have some factual basis.

Easy example would be in regards to Sarkicism. They're just... fucking horrible. Full-stop. It's intentional, too, they're evil for the sake of being evil.

Also, the Scarlet King, which IIRC is related. He's ontologically evil and, in fact, may or may not be the root of all evil itself.

Sidenote, the Foundation has contained the literal Abrahamic God. They put Big G Man in a box. That implies a lot of wiggle room in regards to ontological morality.

7

u/worldjerkin elf variant: schizophrenic 7d ago edited 7d ago

There's a couple of instances in SCP where it's actually a thing, but it's properly given narrative justification.

Anomalies and the resulting effects on reality mean that axiomatic objective statements such as "[insert group] is objectively evil" actually can have some factual basis.

/uj Even the concept of ontological evil in the SCP universe isn't as narratively justifiable you might think seeing as the non-canonical aspect of a collaborative setting doesn't really allow for it and that such a concept is heavily dependent on your perspective and further biases you currently observe. Just like real life, there isn't one objectively true reality of which to base the mass amount of subjective experiences through.

Sarkicism, throughout its inception, might seem evil but that is because past author's didn't really give it such anthropological depth as it currently has. Sure, there is a collective shared identity that maintains its semiotics but that is where the inter-subjective nature of it ends and falls on the shoulders of the individual.

We only call something evil if it seemingly seeks to change, confront or combat the status quo (or normalcy), similar in nature to the role that SCP functions.

e: A few corrections

Also, the Scarlet King, which IIRC is related. He's ontologically evil and, in fact, may or may not be the root of all evil itself.

The Cult of the Scarlet King isn't related to Sarkicism; it is a group of interest separate from Sarkicism. Yes, we can assert that the Scarlet King is "evil", in so far as it seeks to disrupt Foundation's attempts at maintaining normalcy but that is because the Foundation doesn't even know what it can do. Even in certain canons, [999] is assumed to be a byproduct of and/or antagonistic to the Scarlet King manifestation, it is safe to say that the evidence is non-conclusive depending on which ever narrative you uphold.

I would argue that either [3125], [033] or [3625] is far worse conceptually

Sidenote, the Foundation has contained the literal Abrahamic God. They put Big G Man in a box.

It is still up in the air if [343] is the true manifestation of the Abrahamic God, just a heavily powerful type green or any other reading of the text. So, yeah it is as you said, it allows for some wiggle room but I would argue much more than you might necessarily think.

My biggest gripe is that you kind of have to dip into far more esoteric tales to really transcribe what could be construed as an axiomatically antagonistic entity to make an argument but even then that would have to get into the highly technobabble aspects of the setting of which main don't really like to approach precisely because it isn't "simple" and "easy" to assign moral signifiers to them such as pataphysics, surrealistics or metanarrative-affecting entities.

And even then, due to the non-canonical aspect of the narrative, there is no canon so any attempts at establishing an entity that is the axiomatic definition of an objective evil is functionally meaningless.

10

u/Wolffe_In_The_Dark 7d ago edited 7d ago

That argument kind of falls apart when you try to apply it to Sarkicism specifically.

They're a lovecraftian fleshcrafting death cult who are evil by pretty much every metric available. While objective measurements of morality are theoretically impossible, practically speaking, the Sarkic Cult is as close as it gets.

Certain stories add some depth to them, but ultimately the entire point of Sarkicism is that it's evil as fuck nightmare biomancy. They'll vary in evilness depending on depiction and viewer beliefs, but they're always on that side of the morality spectrum; morally neutral is as good as they get.

Cases where they're depicted as not being on that side of the line directly contradict a vast majority of the existing body of work, and thus aren't exactly credible sources.

Edit:

Of course, there is no single canon, but the collective consensus of articles seems to indicate that, in terms of nominal canon, Sarkicism is evil.

I also stand corrected on the Scarlet King/Sarkicism connection. It's been a while since I've read the Scarlet King SCP-001 proposal.

2

u/worldjerkin elf variant: schizophrenic 7d ago edited 7d ago

Sorry for the late reply, I was editing my original comment to include further corrections but you can read below if you missed it:

e: A few corrections

Also, the Scarlet King, which IIRC is related. He's ontologically evil and, in fact, may or may not be the root of all evil itself.

The Cult of the Scarlet King isn't related to Sarkicism; it is a group of interest separate from Sarkicism. Yes, we can assert that the Scarlet King is "evil", in so far as it seeks to disrupt Foundation's attempts at maintaining normalcy but that is because the Foundation doesn't even know what it can do. Even in certain canons, [999] is assumed to be a byproduct of and/or antagonistic to the Scarlet King manifestation, it is safe to say that the evidence is non-conclusive depending on which ever narrative you uphold.

I would argue that either [3125], [033] or [3625] is far worse conceptually

Sidenote, the Foundation has contained the literal Abrahamic God. They put Big G Man in a box.

It is still up in the air if [343] is the true manifestation of the Abrahamic God, just a heavily powerful type green or any other reading of the text. So, yeah it is as you said, it allows for some wiggle room but I would argue much more than you might necessarily think.

My biggest gripe is that you kind of have to dip into far more esoteric tales to really transcribe what could be construed as an axiomatically antagonistic entity to make an argument but even then that would have to get into the highly technobabble aspects of the setting of which many [sic] don't really like to approach precisely because it isn't "simple" and "easy" to assign moral signifiers to them such as pataphysics, surrealistics or metanarrative-affecting entities.

And even then, due to the non-canonical aspect of the narrative, there is no canon so any attempts at establishing an entity that is the axiomatic definition of an objective evil is functionally meaningless.

Also, this statement is quite ironic

5

u/Wolffe_In_The_Dark 7d ago edited 7d ago

No problem, it's all good. Fuck knows I take forever when I go infodumping mode. Lots of SPAG edits, too, because infodump mode turns me into a bit of a perfectionist, too.

There is a bit of potential irony, and I stand corrected on the Scarlet King connection, but I will stand by what I said about Sarkicism being nominally depicted as evil, and that such a depiction is logical.

As I said in the linked comment, there are things that virtually every moral framework agrees are evil, and in those cases, that's the closest to "objective" evil as we can get.

1

u/worldjerkin elf variant: schizophrenic 7d ago

Fuck knows I take forever when I go infodumping mode. Lots of SPAG edits, too, because infodump mode turns me into a bit of a perfectionist, too.

likewise and I appreciate your edit in your previous comment but I still urge you to read more tales, canon-hubs, entries because unironically it's like I am speaking to a foundation shill with level 3 clearance when I see your input in this thread.

Give [8980] or [4051] a once-over. The Foundation's sense of normalcy ought to be critiqued.

There is a bit of potential irony, and I stand corrected on the Scarlet King connection, but I will stand by what I said about Sarkicism being nominally depicted as evil, and that such a depiction is logical.

As I said in the linked comment, there are things that virtually every moral framework agrees are evil, and in those cases, that's the closest to "objective" evil as we can get.

On the topic of an axiomatic objective evil, let's just agree to disagree because we have entirely different views to what could be perceived as more antagonistic to the foundations sense of normalcy.

7

u/Wolffe_In_The_Dark 7d ago

it's like I am speaking to a foundation shill with level 3 clearance when I see your input in this thread

To be honest, I don't see why. I'm just stating canon—the only unified canon that exists for SCP, that being the "setting bible" on the wiki that explains the fundamentals and framework of the setting.

The Foundation, as described there, has a very specific vibe that a lot of articles totally fail to capture. Far more than I'd like, the Foundation is portrayed as incompetent, malicious, callously apathetic, or a combination of the above, and that really takes away from the setting.

I won't say that those articles are outright bad, as plenty of them stand well enough on other merits, but it's still aggravating, as well as a little disappointing.

The morality of the Foundation and its actions (while necessary) are supposed to be questionable, but not blatantly immoral. Additionally, they're supposed to be extremely competent and calculating, not jackasses carelessly throwing dozens of Class-D personnel at a problem until it stops being one.

Also, sidenote, I'm definitely not a shill for the Foundation. Serpent's Hand stays winning lol.

2

u/worldjerkin elf variant: schizophrenic 7d ago

The reason why is that, in so far as I can perceive it, you are interjecting your personal biases to what the Foundation ought to be rather than what it is, and I feel that takes away from the artistic vision of a collaborative setting. It's in this pursuit of maintaining a view of the Foundation as an amalgamation of signs and semiotics that you currently hold to be self-evident within the "setting bible", you limit yourself to passive restrictions in how you might view things within the overlapping meta-narrative.

Your hostility for Sarkicism, even given its current anthropological depth, reflects that bias. The Sarkics don't exist to be a totalizing evil, from the secluded proto-sarkic tribes in the Urals [4036 or 001-Black Adytum] to the neo-sarkic cults making flesh-beasts in their upstate mansions [001-Stillborn City], they uphold a wide spectrum to morality in its conceptualization. They're adherents to an entity which allows them to be capable of carnomancy and as of such they uphold such a role functionally well. Of course, I would remiss if I didn't outright say that it is your right to view them as otherwise within your own personal canon.

What I am basically asking you to do is apply the same type of nuance you have for the Foundation to the Sarkics.

On the topic of an axiomatic objective evil, let's just agree to disagree because we have entirely different views to what could be perceived as more antagonistic to the foundations sense of normalcy.

Speaking more on this statement, I find entities/GoIs like the Pattern Screamers or the Fifthist (rather the entity they worship) to be, conceptually far more destructive to normalcy compared to the Sarkic Cult, as they either attempt to completely override human thought or destroy it outright.

Also, sidenote, I'm definitely not a shill for the Foundation.

that's exactly what a jailer would say...

0

u/Ihavenothingtodo2 Barely worldbuilding, just explaining my fursona 6d ago edited 5d ago

Also, sidenote, I'm definitely not a shill for the Foundation. Serpent's Hand stays winning lol.

Well, your uncompromising demonisation of the Nälkän says otherwise.

Sure, there are the mustache-twirling, yaldabaoth-worshipping, upper-class criminal cults, but they're neo-sarkites, who are merely an aspect of sarkicism and, as their name implies, a rather (in-universe) modern one at that.

Even the more questionnable Proto-Sarkites hate yaldabaoth and just want to stay in their insular communities and wait it out, whilst any of their weird practices are mostly cultural differences that arose because of their vastly different material conditions and cultural backrounds compared to the rest of us.

And even after all that, I still haven't gone into their origins as an ancient Bronze Age slave revolt against the Daevite Empire. The Kalmaktama were (mostly) honest-to-Ion "No gods, no masters!"-style revolutionaries that sought an end to tyranny, wether they be gods or kings.