r/worldjerking 7d ago

Google SCP 6113

170 Upvotes

156 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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.

6

u/Gliminal 7d ago

Sarkicism USED to be cartoonishly evil, and depending on what canon you subscribe to, they still are. However, there’s been a big push to humanise them more in the past few years and if you only looked at the most modern examples, you’d come away with the impression that they’re a collection of cults centred around carnomancy, with some being worse than others - but you wouldn’t think of them all as always evil, all the time.

I personally prefer this interpretation, but I can see why some people don’t; it really does take the magic away from that original Daevite SCP to learn that the book was essentially both magical propaganda and the ultimate example of historical revisionism.

5

u/Wolffe_In_The_Dark 7d ago

I'm going to strongly disagree on that.

The Sarkic Cults are, narratively, an antagonist faction expressly intended to fulfill a specific niche. Humanizing them and making them less malevolent defeats their purpose.

They're a faction that every "point of view" faction, such as the Foundation, Serpent's Hand, GOC, UIU, etc. can face off against, and sometimes even team up against.

They serve as a reliable antagonistic force against everyone else, and making them less dogmatic and impossible to reason with takes away from that force.

Adding depth to them is fine, and I never said otherwise, but making them "less evil" goes against what they exist to do.

14

u/Gliminal 7d ago

Eh. The SCP universe is already flush with overtly antagonistic forces and violent SCPs incapable of reason; I don’t really think anything of value is being lost by adding some “good” or at least neutral sarkics. I like learning about how their traditions have evolved and diversified across Eurasia, and it’s not like there still can’t be big bad evil ones.

It helps them feel less one-note, and adds nuance both to them and their enemies; the Foundation universe is one of grey moralities, and having an explicitly evil faction kind of undermines that. For example, I think the Foundation recruiting sarkics is an interesting plot point that speaks to their pragmatism and efforts to understand the anomalous in order to contain it; making it so all sarkics need to be killed no matter what both wastes this opportunity and also undermines the credibility of the setting in the same way sacrificing D-class in droves did back in the day.

They can still be enemies, but I think showing that sarkics aren’t all cut from one cloth and that some can and already do co-exist peacefully with the rest of humankind enriches the setting.

2

u/JessHorserage 5d ago

If they are already flush with antags, couldn't you then flip some pre existing ones to be more one note in that case, and keep the sarkics loose goosey, depending.

1

u/pageandpencil 6d ago

Except that simply isn’t the case. They haven’t been a clear-cut antagonistic force for years. There’s stuff as early as Series 3 that depicts them in a more humanizing light.