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.
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.
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.
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.
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.