- 16,176
- 9,418
The SCP Revision Team™ Presents
The High 1-A Revision!
But first!
Undercards
Passive Plot Manipulation
In the tale BLANK, Placeholder explains this:
What this means essentially, is that protagonist-type characters like Bright and Clef have low-level plot manipulation courtesy of Narrative entities like Swann. This is outright stated in the follow-up tale, CAST:
Now what this means is that there will be two different additions. The complex one would be Protagonists. Those that can be described as such would get Plot-Manipulation and Reality Warping on account of being able to shape the Narrative around them. In addition, based on the Archetypicals series, we know that the Narrative always favors a satisfying conclusion. An example would be a rubik cube always being solved when scrambled regardless of any logical steps required to achieve that outcome. As such, a Protagonist will always win, or at the very least, be victorious in the end; be it total or pyrrhic. Now the challenge comes from deciding who gets this upgrade. Obviously, author avatars like Bright and Clef should get it based on the quote above, but we also have to consider what constitutes a "Protagonist" in this scenario. If we are being all-encompassing, literally every profile would have this unless outright stated to not be a protagonist like Fred.
The simple addition would be that of Archetypicals. This will be simple since there is a black and white statement of who are Archetypicals. Placeholder and his team are Archetypicals, and that is all. Archetypicals would get Resistance to Plot Manipulation and Reality Warping, as they are not affected by the plot of a Narrative and have "free-will" so to speak.
More context on the nature of Protagonists, Archetypicals, and how they work can be read up on the Archetypicals series as part of the On Guard 43 canon.
SCP-3000's EC key
Pretty straightforward. In a number of tales, SCP-3000 is insinuated to be The Serpent's sibling. The Serpent is the ruler of the Wanderer's Library and should be on par with the Hanged King. As such, SCP-3000 should have an EC key on par with them. I can't remember the exact tales that state they were siblings, but I'm sure someone can pull that up for me later in the thread.
SCP-953's EC key
SCP-953 fought 682 (CTRL+F 953). She needs a 9-A EC key.
Main Event
Ok so about a year ago, I made a CRT on why SCP-5800, otherwise known as the Infosphere, was 5D and hence Low 1-C. However, after deliberation with Ultima, we have come to the conclusion that the Alephs mentioned in SCP-5800 could be real Alephs.
As Ultima put it:
"As far as I can tell, the previous argument for the aleph numbers described in 5800 not qualifying was the fact they are contained in a "the Fifth Dimension," but we've already disregarded dimensionality statements for similar cases in the past (See: DC's Sixth Dimension), where taking them at face value just doesn't fit in with the rest of a verse's cosmology. And even putting that aside, 5800 is explicitly a 5-dimensional space in a purely abstract sense, since its axes aren't really spatial measures like Length, Width or Height but stuff like "Abstractness," "Permeability," and "Corruptibility", so, yeah, those definitely don't serve to disqualify High 1-A anyway."
This would bump all Noospheric creatures to 1-A. Of course, this would - by default - bump Narratives up to High 1-A.
If the above is proven true, what would this mean for scaling?
Well, Noospheric creatures like 3125 and Mnemosyne would be 1-A.
This, in turn, would bump up the God tiers a bit. Since Scarlet King scales to being > 3125, and he shook the Noosphere along with The Brothers Death. So I propose a tier change from "2-A, likely Low 1-C, possibly higher" to "2-A, likely 1-A".
Narrative entities like IHP's Proposal and 2747 will become High 1-A due to the already established uncountable difference between Narratives.
Saikou had this to say about the tiering of the True Authors:
True Authors exist beyond the scope of Swann and likely Pataphysics in its entirety.
"so yeah that's what we know about the true authors
the actual authors, completely unaffected by all the meta shit
made up swann to tell meta stories
when trying to apply this to what we know of Pataphysics, we can either interpret this as:
1. The True Authors are just on another layer of narrative in the Pataphysical pantheon.
2. The True Authors created Pataphysics, and thus the very concept of narrative layers.
The former is kinda the most straightforward. But I think there are some points against it.
Like how it's implied Swanns were created just for meta stuff, which wouldn't make that much sense in the Pataphysics cosmology. You can't "push" a narrative downwards
Or how very little of the pataphysical articles showcasing higher narratives than Swann's affect the Swanns much at all.
so either could work. Hence why I cooould see a "possibly 0" for the True Authors."
This would make True Authors At least High 1-A, possibly 0.
That should be all for now.
Also, shout out to The SCP Revision Team™ for their contributions to this project.
The High 1-A Revision!
But first!
Undercards
- Passive Plot Manipulation
- SCP-3000's EC key
- SCP-953's EC key
Passive Plot Manipulation
In the tale BLANK, Placeholder explains this:
"In Pataphysics, there are three types of characters. There are generics, the standard lot of people, who aren't exactly interesting enough to show up in most narrative structures. Then, there are protagonists and archetypicals. Protagonists have anomalously-high narrative potential, which means that they often end up being, well, protagonists. Heroes of their own stories, free to act upon the narrative structures around them. Members of royalty, heroes from folklore — it's a form of low-level reality-bending."
Place gestures towards himself and his lunchmate. "You and I, on the other hand, are archetypicals. We have anomalously-low narrative potential, and so the narrative structures of the universe act upon us, instead, shaping our lives in ways that end up being good for other nearby stories. This means we have a tendency to be side-characters and fall into common archetypes. I'm a mad-scientist archetype, for example. I kind-of wear it on my sleeve."
Place gestures towards himself and his lunchmate. "You and I, on the other hand, are archetypicals. We have anomalously-low narrative potential, and so the narrative structures of the universe act upon us, instead, shaping our lives in ways that end up being good for other nearby stories. This means we have a tendency to be side-characters and fall into common archetypes. I'm a mad-scientist archetype, for example. I kind-of wear it on my sleeve."
What this means essentially, is that protagonist-type characters like Bright and Clef have low-level plot manipulation courtesy of Narrative entities like Swann. This is outright stated in the follow-up tale, CAST:
"Yes. You all remember the narrative examinations last month?" He's met with nods round the table. "We were testing for 'protagonism', a measure of one's manipulation of surrounding narrative structures. As you hopefully read in your invitation emails, our universe is influenced by 'author-entities', beings from a higher narrative dimension. When an author-entity has an idea for a story, they can inject that story into our 'universal narrative', and it'll influence what happens in our reality."
"Most people aren't interesting enough to show up in these 'stories'. However, people with above-average protagonism are able to react independently to these stories and make their own decisions. They shape the story-structures to fit their own narrative, and so we call them 'protagonists' — literally the main characters in their own stories. As I explained to Blank a while ago, it's a form of low-level reality-bending."
"Harry's passion in life is reading history books," Wettle interjects. "You're telling me some eldritch entity finds that interesting enough to write about?"
Blank cracks his knuckles idly. "Beats a career in repeating other peoples' experiments."
"For Christ's sake—" Place starts, before collecting himself. "I'm telling you the exact opposite, Will. You've all been selected because you have lower-than-average protagonism. You're not just generic characters, but you're more susceptible to narrative influences. When a protagonist or author-entity initiates a story, we fall into place as needed, fulfilling common archetypes."
Blank leans forward, gesturing to the group. "We're side-characters. Archetypicals."
"Yes. Thanks, Harry." Place gets up from his chair, pacing around the podium to his laptop. "Now, most mid- to high-level Foundation personnel are protagonists. Archetypicals are exceedingly rare in our organization as we're focused on people who can combat anomalies and their associated stories, rather than be shaped by them.
"However, there are some anomalies that do not 'want' to be written about; they compel protagonists away, pushing them into other narrative structures. As such, our low narrative content makes us useful for dealing with such anomalies, as we're resistant to becoming more 'protagonistic'."
"Wait, wait, wait, just, hold up." Forkley raises his hands expressively. "Just wanna make sure I really understand this."
"Of course." Place boots up the digital projector, connecting it to his laptop as he listens.
"Protagonists can shape the world around them, on some level, so that they can, what, go on adventures?"
"Not necessarily. The 'shape' of our universal narrative is all about change — you can see this in simple abstractions of stories, like the Hero's Journey. It's actually a function of entropy; a hero has some ordered ideal, and that ideal is challenged over the course of a story, so their beliefs become more complicated and disordered. And, if an author-entity writes a story that requires a 'hero' archetype, an archetypical can fulfill that role. Protagonists are essentially able to make stories revolve around them and their change."
"Most people aren't interesting enough to show up in these 'stories'. However, people with above-average protagonism are able to react independently to these stories and make their own decisions. They shape the story-structures to fit their own narrative, and so we call them 'protagonists' — literally the main characters in their own stories. As I explained to Blank a while ago, it's a form of low-level reality-bending."
"Harry's passion in life is reading history books," Wettle interjects. "You're telling me some eldritch entity finds that interesting enough to write about?"
Blank cracks his knuckles idly. "Beats a career in repeating other peoples' experiments."
"For Christ's sake—" Place starts, before collecting himself. "I'm telling you the exact opposite, Will. You've all been selected because you have lower-than-average protagonism. You're not just generic characters, but you're more susceptible to narrative influences. When a protagonist or author-entity initiates a story, we fall into place as needed, fulfilling common archetypes."
Blank leans forward, gesturing to the group. "We're side-characters. Archetypicals."
"Yes. Thanks, Harry." Place gets up from his chair, pacing around the podium to his laptop. "Now, most mid- to high-level Foundation personnel are protagonists. Archetypicals are exceedingly rare in our organization as we're focused on people who can combat anomalies and their associated stories, rather than be shaped by them.
"However, there are some anomalies that do not 'want' to be written about; they compel protagonists away, pushing them into other narrative structures. As such, our low narrative content makes us useful for dealing with such anomalies, as we're resistant to becoming more 'protagonistic'."
"Wait, wait, wait, just, hold up." Forkley raises his hands expressively. "Just wanna make sure I really understand this."
"Of course." Place boots up the digital projector, connecting it to his laptop as he listens.
"Protagonists can shape the world around them, on some level, so that they can, what, go on adventures?"
"Not necessarily. The 'shape' of our universal narrative is all about change — you can see this in simple abstractions of stories, like the Hero's Journey. It's actually a function of entropy; a hero has some ordered ideal, and that ideal is challenged over the course of a story, so their beliefs become more complicated and disordered. And, if an author-entity writes a story that requires a 'hero' archetype, an archetypical can fulfill that role. Protagonists are essentially able to make stories revolve around them and their change."
Now what this means is that there will be two different additions. The complex one would be Protagonists. Those that can be described as such would get Plot-Manipulation and Reality Warping on account of being able to shape the Narrative around them. In addition, based on the Archetypicals series, we know that the Narrative always favors a satisfying conclusion. An example would be a rubik cube always being solved when scrambled regardless of any logical steps required to achieve that outcome. As such, a Protagonist will always win, or at the very least, be victorious in the end; be it total or pyrrhic. Now the challenge comes from deciding who gets this upgrade. Obviously, author avatars like Bright and Clef should get it based on the quote above, but we also have to consider what constitutes a "Protagonist" in this scenario. If we are being all-encompassing, literally every profile would have this unless outright stated to not be a protagonist like Fred.
The simple addition would be that of Archetypicals. This will be simple since there is a black and white statement of who are Archetypicals. Placeholder and his team are Archetypicals, and that is all. Archetypicals would get Resistance to Plot Manipulation and Reality Warping, as they are not affected by the plot of a Narrative and have "free-will" so to speak.
More context on the nature of Protagonists, Archetypicals, and how they work can be read up on the Archetypicals series as part of the On Guard 43 canon.
SCP-3000's EC key
Pretty straightforward. In a number of tales, SCP-3000 is insinuated to be The Serpent's sibling. The Serpent is the ruler of the Wanderer's Library and should be on par with the Hanged King. As such, SCP-3000 should have an EC key on par with them. I can't remember the exact tales that state they were siblings, but I'm sure someone can pull that up for me later in the thread.
SCP-953's EC key
SCP-953 fought 682 (CTRL+F 953). She needs a 9-A EC key.
Main Event
Ok so about a year ago, I made a CRT on why SCP-5800, otherwise known as the Infosphere, was 5D and hence Low 1-C. However, after deliberation with Ultima, we have come to the conclusion that the Alephs mentioned in SCP-5800 could be real Alephs.
As Ultima put it:
"As far as I can tell, the previous argument for the aleph numbers described in 5800 not qualifying was the fact they are contained in a "the Fifth Dimension," but we've already disregarded dimensionality statements for similar cases in the past (See: DC's Sixth Dimension), where taking them at face value just doesn't fit in with the rest of a verse's cosmology. And even putting that aside, 5800 is explicitly a 5-dimensional space in a purely abstract sense, since its axes aren't really spatial measures like Length, Width or Height but stuff like "Abstractness," "Permeability," and "Corruptibility", so, yeah, those definitely don't serve to disqualify High 1-A anyway."
This would bump all Noospheric creatures to 1-A. Of course, this would - by default - bump Narratives up to High 1-A.
If the above is proven true, what would this mean for scaling?
Well, Noospheric creatures like 3125 and Mnemosyne would be 1-A.
This, in turn, would bump up the God tiers a bit. Since Scarlet King scales to being > 3125, and he shook the Noosphere along with The Brothers Death. So I propose a tier change from "2-A, likely Low 1-C, possibly higher" to "2-A, likely 1-A".
Narrative entities like IHP's Proposal and 2747 will become High 1-A due to the already established uncountable difference between Narratives.
Saikou had this to say about the tiering of the True Authors:
True Authors exist beyond the scope of Swann and likely Pataphysics in its entirety.
"so yeah that's what we know about the true authors
the actual authors, completely unaffected by all the meta shit
made up swann to tell meta stories
when trying to apply this to what we know of Pataphysics, we can either interpret this as:
1. The True Authors are just on another layer of narrative in the Pataphysical pantheon.
2. The True Authors created Pataphysics, and thus the very concept of narrative layers.
The former is kinda the most straightforward. But I think there are some points against it.
Like how it's implied Swanns were created just for meta stuff, which wouldn't make that much sense in the Pataphysics cosmology. You can't "push" a narrative downwards
Or how very little of the pataphysical articles showcasing higher narratives than Swann's affect the Swanns much at all.
so either could work. Hence why I cooould see a "possibly 0" for the True Authors."
This would make True Authors At least High 1-A, possibly 0.
That should be all for now.
Also, shout out to The SCP Revision Team™ for their contributions to this project.
Last edited:
