Sorcery and the Yozis

[Flagg]

I think it's just an elaborate web of conflicting ideas arranged so that people are forced to only pick what they want.

Two different books placing the Republic of Chaya in two different places is one thing. A story where Brigid meets a being which displays ALL the hallmarks of Mara is quite another.

 

[Jukashi]

Quite. But if you don't like that it's more than possible to ignore it, with little to no problems, because of the alternate options presented.

 

[Zaramis]

Note that almost none of the other theories are any better. Like I stated up there, the other possible theories all either share the same similarity with Mara or are more blunt in the sidereals case, with him/her wringing Sorcery from a demon.


Only the DB's ( with their obviously changed story ) has erased that part

 

[Persell]

Well they kind of had to... I think we all agree that the dragon bloodeds' percieved moral superiority over those they call anathema would go out of the window if they had learned sorcery from a demon. So even if Mela is the mother of spells and learned it from mara and someone found out that interesting tidbit of history, someone better not tell the immaculates.


That being said, I most of the time use solars as the inventors of sorcery, it is canonically logical, as they are not limited to one or two circles which implies in my eyes a natural aptitude, too, and it can provide an awful lot of story hooks for any sorcerously inclined exalt.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

I think the evidence that tips me into the 'mara started sorcery' camp is the bit in the black & white that talks about the lack of a god of sorcery, implying that sorcery originated outside of Creation. The very fact that, long after it has become 'common knowledge' in Creation, it still lacks a god to this day speaks volumes.


Granted, those volumes are in ancient arcane tongues that naught but madmen know today, but they wouldn't be sorcerous volumes otherwise.  

 

[Kremlin KOA]

Consider these facts:


1: Sol Invictus is an arrogant SOB who likes his kids getting all the best stuff


2: Mara, or a skilled Mara impersonator, Appeared to Brigid in the tale.


3: Autochthon Confirms that Sorcery is a Primordial method.


4: Part of the surrender treaty was that the Exalted would be able to call upon the component souls of the Yozi, Terrestrials on the lowest souls (1st circle) Sidereals and Lunars on those and the middle souls (2nd Circle), Solars on up to the Higher souls (3rd Circle) and the Incarna on the Yozis themselves


5: Octavian is listed as existing Before the Primordial war, although less hate filled and tainted.


6: Sorcery was used as the method by which the Subservience clause would be invoked.


7: Sol Invictus was Aware of Brigid's Journey, and Visited her at the end of it to give 'Uncle Ben's speech'.


8: The Sidereals re known to have engaged in revisionist history manipulation in regards to anything to do with solars.


9: Sidereal revisionist history has been known to be imposed on terrestrials.


10: Post Usurpation Lunars have engaged in Revisionist history in regards to how they pervcieve the first age.


11: Terrestrials were rarely Innovators in the first Age.


12: Both Mara and Octavian are Component Souls of the 2nd circle


13: the circles of sorcery available are coincidentally nd suspiciously similar


Okay, those pieces of evidence are my premises. Now I will create some logical paths and conclusions (in parentheses will be the premises those conclusions draw from)


a: Mara existed before the primordial war, and was likely less bitter and twisted.(5 & 12)


b: As a result of the usurpation, the Incarna had the power to force any demon to their will. (4)


c: Of the four Sorcery genesis stories, Brigid's is the most likely to have occured. (1, 2, 8, 9 & 10)


d: The previous conclusion does not preclude any of the other three sorcery genesis tales occuring (due to lack of premises precluding the other tales)


e: The least likely genesis tale is that of Hesiesh (8, 9, & 11)


f: The Incarna planned for their Exalts to get Sorcery (1, 3, 4, 6 & 7)


g: Sol Invictus decided who would get what (1, 4, 6 & 13)


In conclusion: I find that the Primordials did not willingly give sorcery to the exalted, but were forced to do so, the same way they were all forced to go into Malfeas. Too many of the surrender abilities were enforced by being in Sorcery for any other conclusion.

 

[Persell]

Its also possible that all the stories are true....well maybe not the DB version. I think that in all honesty that the "discovery" of Sorcery probably occurred in a similar way that Necromancy did.


Basically a group made up of a few Solars, some Lunars, and a few Sidereals (and maybe some DB troops to give some shaky credit to the DB version) probably worked together to get sorcery from the Yozi, and possibly Mara specifically. As the First Age progressed (which could be a long time depending on how you look at it) and tensions between the Exalts built the story was splintered and twisted into its separate versions, the the Sidereals later created the DB version around the time of the Usurption.


I doubt there's any canonical evidence to support my theory, but it just seems the most logical. All the Exalts worked together during the Primordial War to defeat the Primordials, and again to get Necromancy from the Neverborn, so why wouldn't they have cooperated to get Sorcery?


Okay...thanks for the attention...flame away....

 

[Zaramis]

Kremlin proved that he's just a solar fanboy and not much more with his semi-scientifical approach to it all Sidereals and lunars are revisionist but not solars? huh? If they were revisionist, why in the whole world would they be exactly the same as the Solars only with one of their own, and why would they all involve demons giving them the power?


If I was a revisionist nation, I'd do away with the entire demons-gave-us-sorcery thing and get a much better story in there. Que DB's.


But yeah, this entire discussion is more or less pointless. It's too much of a "Storyteller does what ever he likes" thing.

 

[Vanman]

Since when has the pointlessness of a discussion stopped said discussion? Nevah, suh! NEVAH!





And you forget that, whilst we, as players, might speculate on whether the figure that gave sorcery was a demon or not, the actual characters wouldn't have a clue. There'd be no revisionist history because there'd be nothing to revise. At least from the standpoint of saying a demon or a Primordial lower soul/higher soul/whatever soul gave the power in the first place. No one else was there when the figure gave (insert appropriate figure here) the power of sorcery. Again, these speculations as to the nature of this figure is player speculation. Not character speculation. That would be an entirely different ball of wax.

 

[Kremlin KOA]

Kremlin proved that he's just a solar fanboy and not much more with his semi-scientifical approach to it all Sidereals and lunars are revisionist but not solars? huh? If they were revisionist, why in the whole world would they be exactly the same as the Solars only with one of their own, and why would they all involve demons giving them the power?
If I was a revisionist nation, I'd do away with the entire demons-gave-us-sorcery thing and get a much better story in there. Que DB's.


But yeah, this entire discussion is more or less pointless. It's too much of a "Storyteller does what ever he likes" thing.

Zaramis I suggest you read the set more carefully


The original points were merely sections from the books. Some of which were not very 'Solar Fanboyish' (point 1 after all is a Diss on the US himself)


Those 13 points were merely the evidence from the books without conclusions


The Sidereals DID engage in revisionist history, they created the Immaculate order and Immaculate history.


The Lunars DID engage in revisionist histories post usurpation, it is mentioned as part of the Thousand streams river methodology.


I have yet to find a book that describes the Exalted engaging in such at all pre usurpation.


Can you refute any of the points individually with book evidence? Can you show evidence that can cause diffferent conclusions. If so give me book references

 

[Flyck]

I think Kremlin's wrong, and the Lover Clad In the Raiment of Tears created Sorcery, burned down the world, ate the babies, and everyone ceased existing happily ever after.  

 

[Cthulhu_Wakes]

And the Abyssal hard-on is raging.

 

[Vanman]

To borrow a line from another thread.......


Indeed.

 

[Flyck]

Oh yeah...  And then FAFL and his waves of dead... oh yeah!   :twisted:

 

[Quchu]

[insert a witty remark which utilizes "dead sexy" in the sentence somehow.]


[insert a statement of the hilariety of the above sentence.]

 

[Vanman]

I just have to admire you, RR. You are one of the laziest posters on the forum. And for that, I applaud you, sir.

 

[Flyck]

[insert standing ovation here]

 

[Vanman]

Bandwagon jumpers need not apply.

 

[Moonsilver]

But guys the authors have deliberately been obscure and created a mystery they don’t want you to solve. It has been left open ended with the possibility of some questions being answered later.


You can come up with some best fit answers, but future products can easily turn these on their head as they don’t want a definitive answer.

 

[Zaramis]

Kremlin - I just think you took a bunch of very vague points and made it look like it's beyond all doubt that it was all nice and shiny primordial deal.


If it was, I'm personally certain that the authors wouldn't have made it so obscure and hinted so deliberately at Mara's person, or more importantly, the interviews on the Exalted wiki that confirmed it as a demon thing would have been abandoned completely, which I don't think they would do without changing it in a more real way. Also, if the others were revisionist as you say, they would have removed the demons from the tale all together. No reason to keep such a part in.


Warning: Non-scientific answer ahead, disregard this if you want to argue about my bad points. It's full of them, and is entirely subjective. It holds no arguing value. It's not very canon, but a variant that could work out of canon.


All in all, I think your conclusion is rather solar fanboy-ish. I don't like solars, therefor I think your proof is bad. If you had hated solars and their uppity "we're omgzors the best heroes the world has seen!"-attitude, then you probably would have found the evidence as pretty bad too. I like the thought of them being not the most glorious, but the most fooled Exalted of them all. That's why I like the Mara theory and rather see the solars as just as revisionist as all the other Exalted, because after all, they have the dirtiest past to smooth over.

 

[Persell]

I just think you took a bunch of very vague points and made it look like it's beyond all doubt that it was all nice and shiny primordial deal.

That made me giggle. Zaramis accusing somebody else of being blind to the faults of that somebody's idea. Pot, Kettle... Black.

 

[Kremlin KOA]

Kremlin - I just think you took a bunch of very vague points and made it look like it's beyond all doubt that it was all nice and shiny primordial deal.

You call brutally and ruthlessly using violence to force a group to give up their coolest secrets 'nice and shiny'?

If it was, I'm personally certain that the authors wouldn't have made it so obscure and hinted so deliberately at Mara's person, or more importantly, the interviews on the Exalted wiki that confirmed it as a demon thing would have been abandoned completely, which I don't think they would do without changing it in a more real way. Also, if the others were revisionist as you say, they would have removed the demons from the tale all together. No reason to keep such a part in.

let me understand your reasoning, because the Sids and Lunars did not remove the demon references they were not revisionist? So that means the Sids never helped the SOlars back in the first age but instead came into existence to free the enslaved DBs?

Warning: Non-scientific answer ahead, disregard this if you want to argue about my bad points. It's full of them, and is entirely subjective. It holds no arguing value. It's not very canon, but a variant that could work out of canon.


All in all, I think your conclusion is rather solar fanboy-ish. I don't like solars, therefor I think your proof is bad. If you had hated solars and their uppity "we're omgzors the best heroes the world has seen!"-attitude, then you probably would have found the evidence as pretty bad too. I like the thought of them being not the most glorious, but the most fooled Exalted of them all. That's why I like the Mara theory and rather see the solars as just as revisionist as all the other Exalted, because after all, they have the dirtiest past to smooth over.

actually my conclusion is Exalted Fanboyish, because your theory means that you take the Awesome away from ALL exalts, including the dragonblooded. If Sorcery was some big trick, then the scarlet one was the most tricked of all.


I must say it makes the Exalted, all of them, much less awesome if they are nothing but the dupes of the Yozis for their version of the 'Kansas city shuffle'

 

[Persell]

The thing about the Yozis and sorcery is that it all seems too oWoD:VtM for me.  Things are hinted at, things are suggested, but it's never stated outright as canon anywhere, but people still claim it as canon.  Why in the world does it have to be one way or another?  Why does this argument have to keep going?  Instead of saying it is one way, just say it could be that way?  Can't we all just get along?

 

[Jukashi]

The discussion is enjoyable in and of itself. It gives people the chance to show off their knowledge and presentation skills, which is how people on the internet sort oout the social heirarchy.

 

[Vanman]

NUH UH!!!!