A Minecraft World That Doesn't Exist.. | THE SMARTEST PROTAGONIST I HAVE EVER SEEN !?!!
RaikaCabba
5,045 views
Original Video: Searching For A World That Doesn’t Exist
All credits goes to: @Wifies
I MAINLY STREAM ON TWITCH AT ( 9AM OR 8PM AWST ) 🤓
Watch me yap and crap at Twitch: raikacabbagee
Schedules will be on my Twitter and Discord
My Socials 🥬✨
Twitch : Twitch: raikacabbagee
X : https://x.com/RaikaCabbageBoi
Tiktok : TikTok: raikacabbage
Discord : Discord: discord
#vtuber #minecraft #reaction #react #gaming #funny #anime
16 Comments
@cytrusasid 10 months ago (edited)
6:21 Moss generating in LUSH CAVES are real, but never generates in regular caves
@blodhest1389 10 months ago (edited)
56:59
Imma just explain this because nobody else has properly. What d3rlord3 saw was most likely the King in Yellow, basically a cosmic entity that was first written about in a book that released 1895 (Which is why a "King" was mentioned in the book, why most of the village is Yellow, and the fact that d3rlord's name literally means der = the, lord = king, 3 = 3rd color of the rainbow, yellow: The King in Yellow).
Looking at him (or reading act 2 of the original story, which was "scrapped" in the book because the King cursed it, which might've actually been what d3rlord saw, and not the king himself) supposedly fills the viewers head with all the knowledge in the universe, which a human mind cannot comprehend, causing them to go insane, it makes them see everything in the past, the present and the future which is why d3rlord knew that Avery was gonna be the next victim, and at that point all he could do was try to warn him with what little sanity he was still holding onto after seeing that.
Imma just explain this because nobody else has properly. What d3rlord3 saw was most likely the King in Yellow, basically a cosmic entity that was first written about in a book that released 1895 (Which is why a "King" was mentioned in the book, why most of the village is Yellow, and the fact that d3rlord's name literally means der = the, lord = king, 3 = 3rd color of the rainbow, yellow: The King in Yellow).
Looking at him (or reading act 2 of the original story, which was "scrapped" in the book because the King cursed it, which might've actually been what d3rlord saw, and not the king himself) supposedly fills the viewers head with all the knowledge in the universe, which a human mind cannot comprehend, causing them to go insane, it makes them see everything in the past, the present and the future which is why d3rlord knew that Avery was gonna be the next victim, and at that point all he could do was try to warn him with what little sanity he was still holding onto after seeing that.
@bossmaster1002 10 months ago
The popular thought of this arg is that it is based of the story of the king in yellow thats basically a lovecraftian god that if he finds you worth it he will materialize and if you see him directly in the eyes he will flood your mind with the knowlage of the univerese, everything including past, present and future, but everyone that is flooded with this information imidiatly goes mad, the special part of this story is that d3rlord3 was able to be sane after watching the king in yellow and tank the information 2 times since he did it right at the moment but also when editing the video to censor the king in yellow off the video so that none will be affected like he did and since he also recieves knowledge of the future he knew that Avery will find the laptop, he will play in the world he is right now and with that info he wrote the message to warn Avery.
@blodhest1389 10 months ago
Damn YouTube recommended this to me, probably because I've been watching such a large amount of videos featuring this ARG, and sorry but I really think this guys avatar and voice is adorable 😭
@Damini368 10 months ago (edited)
The version of Minecraft displayed on the world file shown in the video is 1.10 (2:24), which was before caves and cliffs. Thus the moss showing up in the cave is strange.
@palpat8431 9 months ago
"Gives you infinite knowledge of past, present and future" - people do a lot of these very authoritative summations about what the King in Yellow is, but it seems to be just them repeating what someone else had said unquestioningly and without doing any sort of deep dive into the matter themselves.
Meanwhile I was already familiar with the topic before I saw the ARG and was confused by the comments people were leaving. They were talking about the King in Yellow, Hastur, Lovecraft in a Frankensteinian summation. Chambers never utilizes The King in Yellow as an entity, it is ever only the play (and the only source for his supposed appearance is literally the cover of the original book). And yes, Chambers barely explores the King in Yellow at all in the book of the same name, I can imagine how disappointed some people are by this but they are heaping on expectations on this book that only came into existence long after the publishing of the book.
Same happens with Hastur by the way. Ambrose Bierce never gave Hastur any of the attributes related to the King in Yellow today, they were heaped onto Hastur long after. These expectations are foisted on Chambers and Bierce because of Lovecraft.
In Lovecraft's own work, Hastur is only mentioned ONCE in "Whisperer in Darkness" so far as I can recall, and the only connection that name has to the King in Yellow by Chambers is that in the same section Hastur is mentioned there is also a reference of the Yellow Sign. There are no other links between the two names across three authors, "Whisperer in Darkness" is the only link. I've also seen some claim that the "Whisperer in Darkness" is one of the King's epithets - it's not, it's just the title of the story where Hastur is mention along with the Yellow Sign (which is the only reason people assume Hastur is the name of the King in Yellow). The actual 'Whisperer in Darkness' in the story is something else entirely.
Lovecraft's writing style explicitly uses "negative space" of writing - lack of explanations, descriptions and attributions of qualities, intents and motives - to foster the idea that these things are either beyond comprehension or unknowable. In this case Lovecraft adapted concepts and names from other authors who likewise don't offer too much explanation about their own creations (well, save for Bierce). This creates a great deal of mystery that spreads outside the confinements of a singular work.
However, consequently one must always be suspicious of any authoritative/definitive sounding elaborate and specific explanations of entities from the Cthulhu Mythos, so when I come across these claims I demand people to actually cite and explain how these explanations come about. There CAN be a more specific explanation of what the King in Yellow is, but you have to actually source it rather than recite some popularized summation. Or else explicitly say this is a novel (new) exploration of the concept, however you CAN do it badly.
For example trying to establish a pantheon of relations between the Mythos entities is fundamentally wrong, these beings are supposed to BEYOND any human conceptualizations, so for example saying there's some familial relation between Cthulhu and The King In Yellow is fundamentally wrong. Unless you do it like how Lovecraft described the Colour out of Space, in that it wasn't a colour at all, and was only called such as the closest possible analogy in human understanding. The familial relations, by the way, were established by other authors who contributed to the Mythos after Lovecraft had passed away.
Perhaps this popularized conception of the King in Yellow as an entity that also goes by Hastur came about from those post-Lovecraft contributions to the Mythos. I never read those because I always felt they degraded Lovecraft's work as their authors didn't fully understand his writing principles.
Some people like to reference THIS VERY ARG as a source to explain what the King in Yellow is. That is wrong to do. You can't take something FROM this ARG and extrapolate it to be a canonical aspect of the King in Yellow if it has never been established prior. This story doesn't work on it's own as an independent exploration of the King in Yellow that can try to add something onto it, it's instead something that relies ON the established concept of the King in Yellow to tell it's own story.
Unless a part two really does come out that will try to flush out it's OWN conception of the King in Yellow, this attribution is entirely bogus as it is a purely speculative extrapolation. And even if it does that, you won't be able to just make that into a universal canon aspect of the King in Yellow, it'll be just a conceptualization of the King in Yellow for this one specific ARG.
"Gives you infinite knowledge of past, present and future" - sorry, but this is just either made up whole cloth by someone online or else exists in one of the post-Lovecraft Mythos works. If it's the latter, then citation needed.
In reality the King in Yellow isn't SUPPOSED to have a definitive explanation, the mystery is the fun aspect, and it gives room for other authors to play with when they adapt the idea for their own creative work. If you try to force an authoritative universal explanation of the King in Yellow you rob those other authors of a chance to do something unique with it, and that includes wifies ARG.
EDIT: in my pursuit to find WHERE people get this "infinite knowledge" idea from I revisited Chambers and have to amend what I said earlier in this post as it was in error in some parts.
Per Chambers there is no real explanation as to why the play drives people crazy at all, it just does. The mystery of it is the integral part to it's ominous horror, same as how there is no actual full transcript of the play, only scattered pieces from it. Just the idea alone of a text or performance driving people insane is, in of itself, interesting, so there's really no need to go into details. There's no mention of anyone "knowing" futures or anything of the like.
The name Hastur comes from "Haïta the Shepherd" by Ambrose Bierce and his description there is that of a God of Shepherds and he never gave Hastur any of the attributes related to the King in Yellow today. But the name appears in Chamber's "The King in Yellow" works, however there it's dropped out of nowhere without much explanation. Frankly one instance rather seems to imply that Hastur is something entirely separate from the King in Yellow: "Aldebaran, the Hyades, Alar, Hastur, glided through the cloud-rifts which fluttered and flapped as they passed like the scolloped tatters of the King in Yellow."
There's "Son of Hastur" but also "the lakes which connected Hastur, Aldebaran and the mystery of the Hyades" which almost makes it feel like it's supposed to be a place rather than a person at first, but more likely it signifies some important relation between a person Hastur and those lakes.
And Lovecraft literally never uses the words "King in Yellow" once in his works. He mentions Hastur exactly once in "Whisperer in Darkness" in a long list of foreboding things, including the Yellow Sign. So... all Lovecraft did was hide an easter egg referencing one of his favorite works and authors. That's it, he literally never gives any descriptions or explanations on the matter. All he says is this (in brackets no less, as an aside): "a man of your mystical erudition will understand me when I link them with Hastur and the Yellow Sign". So Lovecraft was simply referencing Chambers, he didn't have to know of Bierce's work at all.
However my confusion about where people keep getting this stable interpretation about granting infinite knowledge or how it's specifically Lovecraft's contribution stands validated. I would still like to know the actual source for this conceptualization.
Meanwhile I was already familiar with the topic before I saw the ARG and was confused by the comments people were leaving. They were talking about the King in Yellow, Hastur, Lovecraft in a Frankensteinian summation. Chambers never utilizes The King in Yellow as an entity, it is ever only the play (and the only source for his supposed appearance is literally the cover of the original book). And yes, Chambers barely explores the King in Yellow at all in the book of the same name, I can imagine how disappointed some people are by this but they are heaping on expectations on this book that only came into existence long after the publishing of the book.
Same happens with Hastur by the way. Ambrose Bierce never gave Hastur any of the attributes related to the King in Yellow today, they were heaped onto Hastur long after. These expectations are foisted on Chambers and Bierce because of Lovecraft.
In Lovecraft's own work, Hastur is only mentioned ONCE in "Whisperer in Darkness" so far as I can recall, and the only connection that name has to the King in Yellow by Chambers is that in the same section Hastur is mentioned there is also a reference of the Yellow Sign. There are no other links between the two names across three authors, "Whisperer in Darkness" is the only link. I've also seen some claim that the "Whisperer in Darkness" is one of the King's epithets - it's not, it's just the title of the story where Hastur is mention along with the Yellow Sign (which is the only reason people assume Hastur is the name of the King in Yellow). The actual 'Whisperer in Darkness' in the story is something else entirely.
Lovecraft's writing style explicitly uses "negative space" of writing - lack of explanations, descriptions and attributions of qualities, intents and motives - to foster the idea that these things are either beyond comprehension or unknowable. In this case Lovecraft adapted concepts and names from other authors who likewise don't offer too much explanation about their own creations (well, save for Bierce). This creates a great deal of mystery that spreads outside the confinements of a singular work.
However, consequently one must always be suspicious of any authoritative/definitive sounding elaborate and specific explanations of entities from the Cthulhu Mythos, so when I come across these claims I demand people to actually cite and explain how these explanations come about. There CAN be a more specific explanation of what the King in Yellow is, but you have to actually source it rather than recite some popularized summation. Or else explicitly say this is a novel (new) exploration of the concept, however you CAN do it badly.
For example trying to establish a pantheon of relations between the Mythos entities is fundamentally wrong, these beings are supposed to BEYOND any human conceptualizations, so for example saying there's some familial relation between Cthulhu and The King In Yellow is fundamentally wrong. Unless you do it like how Lovecraft described the Colour out of Space, in that it wasn't a colour at all, and was only called such as the closest possible analogy in human understanding. The familial relations, by the way, were established by other authors who contributed to the Mythos after Lovecraft had passed away.
Perhaps this popularized conception of the King in Yellow as an entity that also goes by Hastur came about from those post-Lovecraft contributions to the Mythos. I never read those because I always felt they degraded Lovecraft's work as their authors didn't fully understand his writing principles.
Some people like to reference THIS VERY ARG as a source to explain what the King in Yellow is. That is wrong to do. You can't take something FROM this ARG and extrapolate it to be a canonical aspect of the King in Yellow if it has never been established prior. This story doesn't work on it's own as an independent exploration of the King in Yellow that can try to add something onto it, it's instead something that relies ON the established concept of the King in Yellow to tell it's own story.
Unless a part two really does come out that will try to flush out it's OWN conception of the King in Yellow, this attribution is entirely bogus as it is a purely speculative extrapolation. And even if it does that, you won't be able to just make that into a universal canon aspect of the King in Yellow, it'll be just a conceptualization of the King in Yellow for this one specific ARG.
"Gives you infinite knowledge of past, present and future" - sorry, but this is just either made up whole cloth by someone online or else exists in one of the post-Lovecraft Mythos works. If it's the latter, then citation needed.
In reality the King in Yellow isn't SUPPOSED to have a definitive explanation, the mystery is the fun aspect, and it gives room for other authors to play with when they adapt the idea for their own creative work. If you try to force an authoritative universal explanation of the King in Yellow you rob those other authors of a chance to do something unique with it, and that includes wifies ARG.
EDIT: in my pursuit to find WHERE people get this "infinite knowledge" idea from I revisited Chambers and have to amend what I said earlier in this post as it was in error in some parts.
Per Chambers there is no real explanation as to why the play drives people crazy at all, it just does. The mystery of it is the integral part to it's ominous horror, same as how there is no actual full transcript of the play, only scattered pieces from it. Just the idea alone of a text or performance driving people insane is, in of itself, interesting, so there's really no need to go into details. There's no mention of anyone "knowing" futures or anything of the like.
The name Hastur comes from "Haïta the Shepherd" by Ambrose Bierce and his description there is that of a God of Shepherds and he never gave Hastur any of the attributes related to the King in Yellow today. But the name appears in Chamber's "The King in Yellow" works, however there it's dropped out of nowhere without much explanation. Frankly one instance rather seems to imply that Hastur is something entirely separate from the King in Yellow: "Aldebaran, the Hyades, Alar, Hastur, glided through the cloud-rifts which fluttered and flapped as they passed like the scolloped tatters of the King in Yellow."
There's "Son of Hastur" but also "the lakes which connected Hastur, Aldebaran and the mystery of the Hyades" which almost makes it feel like it's supposed to be a place rather than a person at first, but more likely it signifies some important relation between a person Hastur and those lakes.
And Lovecraft literally never uses the words "King in Yellow" once in his works. He mentions Hastur exactly once in "Whisperer in Darkness" in a long list of foreboding things, including the Yellow Sign. So... all Lovecraft did was hide an easter egg referencing one of his favorite works and authors. That's it, he literally never gives any descriptions or explanations on the matter. All he says is this (in brackets no less, as an aside): "a man of your mystical erudition will understand me when I link them with Hastur and the Yellow Sign". So Lovecraft was simply referencing Chambers, he didn't have to know of Bierce's work at all.
However my confusion about where people keep getting this stable interpretation about granting infinite knowledge or how it's specifically Lovecraft's contribution stands validated. I would still like to know the actual source for this conceptualization.
@krisCarillo07 9 months ago
46:46
i know for someone so smart like d3rlord3 it would be confusing why he ignored this warning if he's supposed to be this smartest protagonist persona thing buuuut
fun fact: in the original drive folder video, a scene that wasnt shown in here was that d3rlord3 DID infact turn back.. his 4d ahh gut feeling actually almost saved him, he was BEGINNING to retreat and give up, but suddenly after a few minutes of walking away, for some reason d3rlord3 kept glancing back at the house over and over again til he just fully made a 180 again, and the rest is history
i wanna add that the attention to detail is so insane, because remember back at the very first tunnel, d3rlord3 comments "but i felt compelled" i believe something similar happened here, he was SUPPOSED to turn back, but something was compelling him to move forward and explore.
notice how everytime d3rord3 tries to mention wanting to do something
he doesnt say or use the word "want to" he says he "needs' to or "have"
example: "i need to move
example 2: "but i need to keep exploring"
from the very beginning to end, its obvious that the entity or who we now know is the king in yellow, was trying to lead d3rlord3 to those golden gates and that was what those "compelling" feelings was, he was luring him to a trap, one that our boy unfortunately fell for
i know for someone so smart like d3rlord3 it would be confusing why he ignored this warning if he's supposed to be this smartest protagonist persona thing buuuut
fun fact: in the original drive folder video, a scene that wasnt shown in here was that d3rlord3 DID infact turn back.. his 4d ahh gut feeling actually almost saved him, he was BEGINNING to retreat and give up, but suddenly after a few minutes of walking away, for some reason d3rlord3 kept glancing back at the house over and over again til he just fully made a 180 again, and the rest is history
i wanna add that the attention to detail is so insane, because remember back at the very first tunnel, d3rlord3 comments "but i felt compelled" i believe something similar happened here, he was SUPPOSED to turn back, but something was compelling him to move forward and explore.
notice how everytime d3rord3 tries to mention wanting to do something
he doesnt say or use the word "want to" he says he "needs' to or "have"
example: "i need to move
example 2: "but i need to keep exploring"
from the very beginning to end, its obvious that the entity or who we now know is the king in yellow, was trying to lead d3rlord3 to those golden gates and that was what those "compelling" feelings was, he was luring him to a trap, one that our boy unfortunately fell for
@vkarvanzer4243 10 months ago
"Is this video scripted?"
Brother chat, its an ARG.
Of course it's scripted Lol
Brother chat, its an ARG.
Of course it's scripted Lol
@FernanGunao 10 months ago (edited)
@lesshumanmoredead 10 months ago (edited)
Ngl your voice kinda adorable twin, you get a sub from me 🌹✌️
@krisCarillo07 9 months ago
minus_75 acting like a smartass when they say "this is obviously scripted"
my guy thats the whole point lmao
arg means "Alternative Reality Game"
"atleast try to make it more natural"
bro what?? XD
my guy thats the whole point lmao
arg means "Alternative Reality Game"
"atleast try to make it more natural"
bro what?? XD
A Minecraft World That Doesn't Exist.. | THE SMARTEST PROTAGONIST I HAVE EVER SEEN !?!!
RaikaCabba
5,045 views
Original Video: Searching For A World That Doesn’t Exist
All credits goes to: @Wifies
I MAINLY STREAM ON TWITCH AT ( 9AM OR 8PM AWST ) 🤓
Watch me yap and crap at Twitch: raikacabbagee
Schedules will be on my Twitter and Discord
My Socials 🥬✨
Twitch : Twitch: raikacabbagee
X : https://x.com/RaikaCabbageBoi
Tiktok : TikTok: raikacabbage
Discord : Discord: discord
#vtuber #minecraft #reaction #react #gaming #funny #anime