What is Apollyon?
So, I recently read 'When Day Breaks', the new 001 Proposal, and I'd like to know what the Apollyon class is. I can assume it's worse than Keter. Is it some sort of uncontained Keter?
What is Apollyon?
Forum
» SCP Universe / Foundation Universe
» What is Apollyon?
Summary:
What exactly is Apollyon?
Soo, it basically means "Humanity is fucked, classify that Apollyon"?
Well, judging from the currently three articles that used it:
"An anomaly that can't be contained which will eventually and undoubtly fuck us all over with no mercy. God save us all."
At least that's how I interpret it, if more people end up using it maybe the definition could become more clear.
Based what all three authors have said, it isn't an object class and doesn't mean anything except to get the reader's attention. There are no rules for Apollyon because it means there are no rules.
Defining it, therefore seems counterproductive.
"An anomaly that can't be contained which will eventually and undoubtly fuck us all over with no mercy. God save us all."
There are Keters to which this very clearly applies.
There are Keters to which this very clearly applies.
IIRC, there are mostly-helpful SCPs used by the Foundation in some manner that would be classed as Thaumiel if it was a thing when they were created.
Thaumiel does not mean "mostly-helpful SCPs used by the Foundation in some manner" its objects which facilitate containment through their effect. Telekill might have fit, before its rewrite. The bladewood grove is an example,where the Foundation uses the wood for various things, which would not be Thaumiel. Just because it provides something useful does not mean the entirety of its effect revolves around facilitating containment. The argument that old articles may have also fit in another object class is circular and pointless.
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!
Apollyon as far as my understanding is and uncontainable SCP which will lead to an "end of the world scenario". However it's existence is only known to a few (with exceptions). Thaumiel however is super-top secret (Yeah I know it sounds stupid), to compare it to real life; Safe, Euclid and Keter are like large army operations, loads know about it and you can tell people it exists. Whereas Thaumiel is the equivalent of some CIA black op with complete deniability, the masses will NEVER find out unless those at the top want them to.
The best explanation I’ve heard is where it was expressed via the Locked Box test. “If you put it in a locked box and one second later, you’re dead and everyone else is dead and the world is on fire, it’s Apollyon.”
It seems like something that basically screws humanity. The word Apollyon is defined as "the Greek name for Abaddon, the spiritual being (or place) named as the destroyer" so….. pretty much just destroys humanity I guess.
By [REDACTED]
It means: "Humanity is boned, we cant contain it. Apollyon."
I've been reading about it and asking all around. People seem to think Apollyon is basically "Humanity is absolutely destroyed".
But this does not make sense. Object Classes are based solely on difficulty and complexity of containment and recontainment, not the threat of the object itself. So classifying Apollyon as "Humanity is fucked" makes no sense.
However, I have noticed something regarding Apollyon SCPs: They are uncontainable. Keter SCPs are containable, but very hard to do so. Apollyon SCPs are simply impossible to contain.
So my proposal for the definition of Object Class Apollyon is to be used for SCPs which the Foundation simply can't contain, and as for the locked box test, maybe "If you can't put it in a box, it's probably Apollyon."
What about it?
I agree Zapforce. If Apollyon ever became a class, which I highly doubt it, I'd think that would be it's definition. The definitions would be;
Safe: You put it in a box, and it does nothing
Euclid: You put it in a box, it might break out, but you're not sure
Keter: You put it in a box, and it breaks out as soon as you look away
Apollyon: You try putting it in a box. It's impossible
Thaumiel: It is a box
Neutralized: You put it in a box, but it's gone now.
Explained: You put it in a box because you though it was strange, but it's not
Yep I think that's it. Probably. Please tell me if I messed up on something, or left it out.
I feel it would be fitting to define Apollyons as both "world-ending monstrosities" and "objects that simply cannot be contained, period", but I understand the argument for them to be defined as "simply cannot be contained".
Or… they're objects that are uncontainable because they can will bring about the end of the world.
Nevermind
I'm oddly amused that we used to regularly get "More Apollyon, please!" forum threads and a number of bad Apollyon coldposts, and now that there are other Apollyons, people are now asking, "What is this Apollyon thing?"
(I think asking is a good thing, no worries.)
There's this as well, which has more discussion about the definition of the class.
(account deleted)I believe what the term technically defines is still up in the air. It was introduced as a one-off class in Clef's 2317, used to denote a creature whose containment procedures were practically ineffectual and only used to maintain morale in face of the impending eschaton.
The 3000 contest saw two additional entries to the Apollyon library: the item of note you mentioned previously, and SCP-3999, an 'I Have No Mouth but I Must Scream'-esque meta-article which describes a situation whereby the Foundationverse was totally trashed by an entity which initiated a ZK-class scenario (reality failure) and the sole survivor of this catyclysm was subjected to millenia of torment until it devised some way to kill his captor and reinstate consensus normalcy across most planes of existence.
I therefore surmise that whatever official designation provided to Apollyon in the coming months will denote a state or coming state of existence whereby the survival of the human race as it operates is no longer feasible, the only options available to the Foundation being either escape or submission.
I therefore surmise that whatever official designation provided to Apollyon in the coming months will denote a state or coming state of existence whereby the survival of the human race as it operates is no longer feasible, the only options available to the Foundation being either escape or submission.
There are Keters for which this is true. The only difference seems to be entirely meta.
Just because Keter was used doesn't mean it doesn't fill a niche. IIRC, 076 was always Keter, when in the early days it could easily have been dubbed Thaumiel. We're an evolving culture.
If Apollyon means "Rules? There are no rules where you are going!" then each additional use cheapens it. I am personally not especially inclined to change any of my Keters, if that's what Apollyon means
Nobody's gonna force you to change your Keters to Apollyon if/when the class gains Thaumiel-level traction.
The point is that just because other object classes have filled in for it in the past doesn't mean that it can't be used to better define the specific circumstance. Keter, after all, basically means "containment is very hard, and it's very likely a very dangerous thing". It was used in the past to fill in Apollyon's proposed role because of the limitation of the SEKT class system in use at the time, not because it necessarily fell under Keter's role as "dangerous, hard to contain thing".
As they say, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
It was used in the past to fill in Apollyon's proposed role because of the limitation of the SEKT class system in use at the time, not because it necessarily fell under Keter's role as "dangerous, hard to contain thing".
I don't see how Keter is ever capable of being what any of the three authors that have used it say that Apollyon means. They've all said some variation of "It's not an object class. It has no rules or requirements. It is a signal that the normal rules no longer apply."
All three do have a common thread: "Longterm containment is largely ineffectual, and we're all doomed if we can't pull a miracle out of our collective arses".
As for the counterpoint of…
Based what all three authors have said, it isn't an object class and doesn't mean anything except to get the reader's attention. There are no rules for Apollyon because it means there are no rules.
Well, the fact that the membership has latched onto a more-or-less specific definition of Apollyon that does fit with how we've seen it used so far, plus the fact that every GoI and SCP can (and historically has) developed in ways the original author never intended if it attracts enough attention points to a strong case of Death of the Author being on the site. I mean, how else would you describe the presence of Fear Alone when compared to it's source material?
Longterm containment is largely ineffectual, and we're all doomed if we can't pull a miracle out of our collective arses
How is this not already effectively covered by the Keter designation, wherein the Foundation is constantly struggling or entirely unable to contain the anomaly? The Hateful Star, my own Searching… and many Keter articles have already claimed that ground for that object class. Membership has not latched onto Apollyon, there's just a vocal minority of users pushing really hard for it to get wide adoption. Things do evolve over time but so far nothing from Apollyon has made it in any way unique or anything other than a gimmick wannabee object class which has articles succeeding in spite of it, not because of it.
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!
How is this not already effectively covered by the Keter designation, wherein the Foundation is constantly struggling or entirely unable to contain the anomaly?
The use of SEK has set up a clear line of difficulty, with each class being harder to contain. Keter, at the top, is specifically noted under Object Classes to be the hardest to contain, and may not be fully containable.
That is different from "can't be contained" or "containment is useless/ineffectual". Keter ultimately denotes a very dangerous thing that can be viably controlled, directed, or hidden to some extent. Not "kiss our keister goodbye". The afore-mentioned we-can't-stop-this-at-all SCPs fall into Keter because… well, where else can you put it in the SEKT system?
You specifically point out the Hateful Star, and it would be a viable candidate for Apollyon… if it wasn't limited to subliminal speeds and an estimated impact time in the year 7,716 CE. By the time it reaches us, the Foundation likely has a plan to deal with it, even if it's simply "move to a new planet". It's safely in Keter because it's not yet close enough to pose an immediate threat to humanity. It's something to worry about, but it's not a pressing issue like, say, 2317 which can literally breach at any time, and there's not much the Foundation can do to stop it without finding a new source for the appropriate whale bones… which may no longer exist.
Apollyon has made it in any way unique or anything other than a gimmick wannabee object class which has articles succeeding in spite of it, not because of it.
Si how else do new object classes get established?
That is different from "can't be contained" or "containment is useless/ineffectual".
Bullshit. Keter means things are actively breaking out of the box, uncontainable and in the wild. Again, I point to the examples of the hateful star and searching. All the Foundation can do is monitor those objects. There is a clear precedent of those and dozens of other uncontained Keter articles that back me up. It's an established part of the object classes definition. From the Object Classes page:
Keter-class objects are anomalies that pose an inherently serious threat to the safety of Foundation personnel and the rest of mankind and either require extensive and complex procedures to contain or cannot be fully contained by the Foundation's current technology and knowledge.
Cannot be fully contained extends to "we can only monitor this and hope things get better". The Foundation does not have any plan to prevent the hateful star's impact. Does that not imply the despair that Apollyon is going for? This is territory already covered under our existing object class structure.
As the person who established the last new Object class, it was in a different time in site history when both crosslinking and new object class ideas were held to a ridiculously high standard. In order to make it work for the community, I used a word related to one of our existing object classes. This was also a word which tied into site history, 001 proposals, and implied its cyclical nature. Then, I made no effort to promote it. When I wrote it, in my head, my article was going to be the only Thaumiel object class.
I had no expectation of it becoming a new shiny object class. Other people came on their own initiative because it filled a void and expanded on how the Foundation could behave in-universe. An object class saying "this is meaningless and we give up" doesn't do any of that. New object classes need to have thought put into them beyond "we want to grab the reader's attention" because if they are to be widely used then their impact will be diminished every time. Apollyon is utterly lacking in deeper thematic meaning, fails to establish itself as unique and has no consistent definition. It doesn't fit into the existing object class paradigm and the "we're so fucked" aspect of it will get weaker every time it's slapped onto an SCP.
I want to note I'm not against Apollyon as a narrative device, but it's totally and obviously incredibly inadequate as an object class. It was never intended to be one and it shouldn't be forced into that box.
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!
You specifically point out the Hateful Star, and it would be a viable candidate for Apollyon… if it wasn't limited to subliminal speeds and an estimated impact time in the year 7,716 CE. By the time it reaches us, the Foundation likely has a plan to deal with it, even if it's simply "move to a new planet". It's safely in Keter because it's not yet close enough to pose an immediate threat to humanity.
SCP-2565, SCP-3002, SCP-3519; one ends the world in a few decades, one seems about to, and the last already did.
Well, the fact that the membership has latched onto a more-or-less specific definition of Apollyon that does fit with how we've seen it used so far,
- The box is a lie
- You can't box the sun.
- The author wrote themself into a box so they had to write a character to kill them inside the box which accidentally the whole universe.
These aren't the same things.
That was my box test definition for 2317's version for evers, but the way you wrote it is best!
:D
It's effectively Scanny's/communism will win's definition, if I recall correctly. Credit where it's due.
eta: it might have also been Clef's. There was a c in the name.
I came up with it independently, it makes sense.
How exactly would 076 be considered Thaumiel? How does it facilitate containment? The whole point of that story is that the Foundation tries to weaponize anomalies and fails. The argument that old articles might have used these wannabe object classes is an utterly pointless one to make. I also agree with SirPudding that the "containment is just pretend" argument is weak and will only get more cheap over time.
Addressing your earlier points: There is no obvious "official" designation on the horizon. Apollyon has been used inconsistently in each appearance and the community reception has been tepid at best. You look at Thaumiel, the newest object class, which had zero hooplah but because it was logically thought out, interesting, and did something new, tons of people wanted to use it. That includes both subsequent x000 winners and multiple 001 proposals not counting mine.
Apollyon will never get widespread usage as long as it has a vague definition which is broadly covered by existing object classes. People who are pushing it should remember that when you try too hard to fart you might end up shitting your pants.
I am not against new object classes being added. But Apollyon as it stands is forced and contrived.
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!
How exactly would 076 be considered Thaumiel? How would it facilitate containment?
I wasn't under the impression that Thaumiel-class skip needed to contribute to the vague goal of 'containment' in some way. If that's so, 2000 has little business being one; it makes clones, slows time, and resets our culture. That does nothing to keep Keters 'n shit (or even a specific Keter and shit) from breaking out like they do. 076 was an anomaly utilized by the Foundation in an official capacity in its war against bad things. iirc, it was even used in the case of 354 at one point. Of course I'm not contesting the fact that it's Keter now but circa Omega-7, it wouldn't be that much of a stretch.
The argument that old articles might have used these wannabe object classes is an utterly pointless one to make.
How? We were more limited back then, so when presented with the S/E/K system, people tended to choose one of the three. Now, we have a wider range of classification. What is a pointless argument to make is that because these old articles didn't use them, means we can't.
To be clear: I really don't give half a shit whether or not Apollyon gets 'official recognition.' It's something that thus far a few people have found useful; if more people do, then, eyyy! If not, it becomes a footnote. That's not a tragedy. But claiming, I think, that Keter fully supplants it is a bit harsh and also just patently untrue.
2000 has little business being one; it makes clones, slows time, and resets our culture. That does nothing to keep Keters 'n shit (or even a specific Keter and shit) from breaking out like they do.
That's an incredibly basic reading. It facilitates containment by allowing the Foundation to reset the world, should containment fail. It's not just one object, it's the mission of the Foundation.
Again, from the Object class list: "Thaumiel-class objects are either capable of containing or counteracting SCP objects or dealing with the aftermath of an uncontrolled containment breach either by retroactively altering history or otherwise "resetting" reality such that the disaster never occurred."
But claiming, I think, that Keter fully supplants it is a bit harsh and also just patently untrue.
Keter explicitly covers objects the Foundation can't take care of. That's just a fact. It's part of the definition. Saying that being about despair makes it different is a fundamental misunderstanding of how object classes have been used for the past ten years. I'm not saying that because old articles didn't use it we can't now, but they were written with these definitions in mind and trying to stuff them into an esoteric class they don't belong in and were never intended for is pointless. There might be one or two that potentially fit into it depending on your reading, but who cares? Write a new article if you think you have an idea that gives it definition. We should be as harsh as possible with adding things to the core format and Apollyon doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!
'Contingency in case containment fails' =/= 'Thing what keeps things contained.' 2000 is at most an indirect source of getting Humanity back to a point where it was capable of containing stuff. It's the Foundation's version of a sandvich.
Keter explicitly covers objects that the Foundation can't take care of.
And Apollyon covers objects that the Foundation's scientific community (or whatever's left of it) rules with general consensus that will never (practically) be able to be taken care of, in any capacity. Keter, at its most extreme, implies a threat which, removing any and all reasonable technological restrictions the Foundation finds itself hampered by, could still potentially be entered into a long/short/whatever containment situation at some point.
uncontainable right now =/= uncontainable ever
and if we're citing the object classes page as some sort of dogma I might as well add this:
anomalies that pose an inherently serious threat to the safety of Foundation personnel and the rest of mankind and either require extensive and complex procedures to contain or cannot be fully contained by the Foundation's current technology and knowledge.
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!
Based on When Dawn Breaks and 2317, my personal definition is "It's not worth trying to contain. Move on." We've thoroughly examined all the options, and we've got nothing. It's gonna screw us anyway (or already has), so get on with business (e.g., planet evacuation, hope we find new tech or Thaumiels, warm up SCP-2000, whatever). I can't draw anything from the third article, unless maybe it's "It's Apollyon because the skip is writing the article/reality and its telling him there is nothing he can do."
If we're looking at past articles that fit the bill, I'd say maybe the Hateful Star and DETERMINATIVE SET XN are examples of this type of strategic thinking on the part of the Foundation. Probably the 3000 about the Atlantic Ocean.
Argumentative ramble unrelated to OP:
Apologies for not phrasing these as replies. Some of this responds to Roget, but a lot goes to the debate in general.
I think the fact that there are past Keters to which this would apply (or that Keter is already doing this job) is an ineffective argument for avoiding Apollyon. Site conventions change, and we don't edit past articles to fit new in-universe nomenclature. Plus, it wouldn't necessarily fit their story structure to reveal early. I also think using a box-test definition as the basis of argument is needlessly limiting. (This applies more to other threads, I think, but I see it here.) There's an argument that if you can't express a concept briefly that it probably isn't well thought-out, but that doesn't make the abbreviated box-test metaphor exceptionally meaningful. (For example: If it IS the box, it's a Thaumiel… but that isn't an accurate portrayal.) Plus, there's a creative aspect to it: someone would think of a good one anyway given enough time. (IIRC Scorpion451 had a pretty good one.)
It doesn't massively matter what any of us think of it (outside of our votes) or how we push it or beat it up or try to "fix" it in threads, unless that inspires or restrains anyone's writing. It's going to be defined and enter usage by whatever successful articles use it.
I don't really care either way about Apollyon. Yes, it's shittily defined. No, it's not as conceptually distinct or clear as Thaumiel. No, I'm not begging for more of them. No, I don't think it's the new wave. No, I don't think it needs or is yet anywhere near clear enough for an official definition.
I'm not entirely clear why an author would want to communicate this information up front, with the exception of the existing 3000 Apollyons. If I had a really clear idea/reason, I would probably be writing it.
If a dozen successful articles use it as Super-Keter and that becomes what it means… yeah, that would be depressing. If it's never used again, I'll only mourn that it never inspired anyone else to write an interesting story about the Foundation's worldview and actions.
I think the fact that there are past Keters to which this would apply (or that Keter is already doing this job) is an ineffective argument for avoiding Apollyon. Site conventions change, and we don't edit past articles to fit new in-universe nomenclature.
If it gets canonized in such a way that it makes sense to change anything I've written, I will, even if I'm not happy about it. I don't really see this as much of a consensus now though honestly.
Maybe it's just something that is uncontainable. Something that is either too hard to contain, or something that is incorporeal.
Already covered by the existing definition of Keter.
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!
True, except for one thing
Keter-class objects are anomalies that pose an inherently serious threat to the safety of Foundation personnel and the rest of mankind
Things that are deemed uncontainable don't have to pose a huge threat. For example, SCP-2998 is uncontainable due to the fact it is a electromagnetic signal, but it does not pose a large threat AND it is classified as Safe.
I've written and suddenly chair which isn't threatening to human life but is a serious threat to the veil because it kidnapped the pope. It's letter.
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!
I would define Apollyon as "things that threaten the foundation on a large scale and specifically." or "Anyone reading this should ignore their current duty and focus on this." Those are the only two things all three articles share that aren't alsoshared by hundreds of articles. It could be "Situation: Fubar" for the foundation; "We don't care about proper procedure or careful description."
Things that don't make something Apollyon:
1: theoretically uncontainable-you could contain the Sun in a Dyson Sphere.
2: Currently uncontained-this describes hundreds of SCP's, including many safe ones. I don't think a misplaced safe, non-deadly item is Apollyon.
3: known to the public-The main point of 2137 is hiding it's existence.
4: not round/unknown attributes-again there's hundreds of SCP's with unknown abilites.
You know, call it an unpopular opinion, but I like Apollyon being loosely defined. It's given to SCPs on a case by case, for the most immediate and salient threats.
Huh, never thought of it that way; its different.
I actually kinda like that. It means, "Foundation, focus on this one NOW."
Makes sense, it still fits with how we've seen it used thus far while sidestepping the major issue of prior definitions.
This is the same thing as saying it means the rules no longer apply.
Too many wake up calls and people just turn off their phones.
… actually it doesn't really make sense with the original use of Apollyon, because that was only used in the top secret iteration of 2317. A bit hard to get the Foundation to focus on something that you're not telling anyone about!
More generally, I find the fact that people get hung up on the in-universe meaning of Object Classes bemusing. Why does it matter what Apollyon (or Keter, or any of the rest) means? It's like arguing over the difference between a Site and an Area, or the ranks in an MTF.
There's a little more justification on out-of-universe grounds. Apollyon, like Thaumiel before it, is a signal to the reader that something out of the ordinary is going on. It could easily turn into a "my Keter is bigger than your Keter" object class, which would be fine, but would reduce the impact of 2317 (in the same way that the increasing use of iterations is doing).
So use it if you want, but if you want your skip to have an object class with impact, do what Clef did and say "my skip is so badass it needs a brand new class all to itself". And don't worry about what the class "means". After all, it worked for Kaktus/Twisted Gears!
Why does it matter what Apollyon (or Keter, or any of the rest) means?
I like consistency in shared worldbuilding. I don't have to write things that exist in a shared universe at all, so if I am going to, I prefer to make my work as consistent and connected as possible, otherwise what's the point?
It's like arguing over the difference between a Site and an Area, or the ranks in an MTF.
I find these discussions useful and entertaining.
Why does it matter what Apollyon (or Keter, or any of the rest) means?
Knowing its meaning helps potential authors use it better, even if its meaning is that it's meant to stay undefined.
I dunno. I think I'll just stop posting in this thread: starting to feel like every time I say something here I end up getting double-teamed.
What I'm pretty sure Apollyon is (in box terms):
If you are in the box to protect yourself from it, it's Apollyon.
That is SCP-3125's inverse containment, and it isn't the kind of containment in any of the three Apollyon articles.
Actually, in Shaggy's proposal, that is basically it. The survivors are to get indoors and cover themselves, etc to protect themselves from becoming Peter from that one episode of Family Guy where he wished he had no bones a giant blob of human silly putty.
Well, considering the fact that the term Apollyon is another name for the "destroying angel of the bottomless pit" (AKA Satan).
So personally, I would rather have this as a specific class dedicated to "Godly end-of-the-world" type SCP's. That way there would only be a select few acceptable uses for it, as those are arguably one of the hardest (if not THE hardest) SCP's to successfully write, and thus eliminating Rogets good point in "The problem is viability, it gets cheaper with each subsequent use."
If anything limiting world ending SCP articles to one object class is the cheapest of all. It sucks out any and all tension because you already know how it ends.
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!
But I didn't say ALL world ending SCP, just a few. Like I said "Godly" EOTW. The ones with "another force" or of such stature, like the Gate Guardian, ya know? It's not necessarily telling you how it ends, just gives you the idea how it could end…in time.
Shaggydredlocks' proposal doesn't seem very "godly".
That's true, I never said it was. I was saying what I personally think it should be what I defined it as, since there's no actual official class being Apollyon. He used it well before I even thought of my ideal for it. (I.e. change that to keter and change the ones that fit the description of that to Apollyon). But to be honest, the longer I try to explain it, the dumber it sounds, so bleh.
Honestly, you put it best "There are no rules for Apollyon because it means there are no rules."
If anything, it could be better off being classified as a "It could and/or WILL eradicate us all in one way or another. We can't stop it, and just gotta hope we aren't around anymore when it does" type of object class.
/forum/t-2258843/what-is-apollyon#post-
page revision: 1, last edited: 02 Apr 2021 15:16
