does the Duat "still" exist?

[efreund]

From an Arisen's theological perspective, where do mortals go when they die? (Ignoring those that leave behind ghosts.) From what I gather, the religion of the Duat was introduced to the tribes of the Nile Delta by the Shaniatu. It's not clear what their tribal theology was before that, but presumedly the Arisen now would consider it incorrect (presuming they could remember it).

After proselytizing to the tribes of the Nile Delta, and establishing Irem, etc., from what I gather, it became common belief that all souls enter (or at least attempt to head westward via the Twilight towards) Duat upon death. Point is, all mortals, even the pitiful slave who got a rock dropped on him, went to/towards Duat when he died.

So, does that still happen? Meaning, now - in the context of the modern day and fourth Sothic turn - when some random mortal gets shot on the south side of Chicago (and doesn't produce a ghost), does he head to/towards Duat? Are new souls reaching the Judges?

I'm less looking for the "real" metaphysical answer (though that might be interesting too), and more the in-universe "this is what most mummies believe" answer.

[Seraph Kitty]

My reading of Dreams of Avarice (and all of Mummy reaally), was that it told the (metaphoric) truth about the material world as it currently exists.

If I wanted to factor Mage's cosmology into this, it would be that the supernal doesn't actually make things exist - it provides blueprints, but phenomenal reality has to make itself. The Judges created the Law of the Fallen world. The Exarchs merely changed the blueprints a little, to ensure that oppression was more fundamental and magic was suppressed.
Maybe the Judges Law wouldn't be as grimdark without the Exarchs. Maybe. But magic and nature have plenty of other horrible truths. Plus, if the Seers are right, the World Before was indifferent to humanity - ruled by cruel gods of nature.

Another way of looking at this is that the Ma'at (and the Judges as its manifestation) chose which symbols get to be in the Supernal and which are lies that can't be - as this is the divine law that forms reality.

[Octavo]

Here's a thought - again, just spitballing, not trying to mage/mummy supremacy all over the place - maybe Aa'ru is like a Supernal Realm without a Watchtower. The 42 Judges of Life are not exarchs, but are primordial beings who were never ousted from the Supernal. Utterances and Nomenclature derive from the Scroll of Ages, and doesn't work like the Arcana because Aa'ru is a realm the Exarchs and other Archmages are barred from. The Exarchs ousted many of the Old Gods and anthropomorphized the universe in some tellings. Aa'ru is that part that is still ruled by utterly alien beings.

[SunlessNick]

I've interpreted Sekhem as being Resonance, and I think that fits with the descriptions of it across Mummy and Dark Eras.

I'm similar, but I more think of Resonance as dSekhem/ds (and Glamour as dSekhem/dt).

There are a shitton of things in Heaven and Earth that aren't dreamt of in Awakened philosophy. There wouldn't really be a Mage if there weren't.

Mages are theory junkies, more than being defined by anything they know or don't know.

Indeed. I'm very inclined to think that while, yes, Duat is a Lower Depth, A'aru/Supernal is only an in-character explanation but is actually separate

Second edition Mage has done away with the idea that the Supernal is a place as such (though it can act like it at times). So I'm inclined to picture it the same way. (Though I expect certain types of mage sight might be really bright if a mage ended up in A'aru).

I really, really like Mummy, and I don't want to have, nagging in the back of my head, knowledge that its unique cosmology is overriden by Mage's.

A'aru being the same as the Supernal wouldn't override Mummy with Mage, any more that it would override Mage with Mummy, or one-Arcadia overrode either 1st Ed Mage or Changeling with the other.


But to keep in topic for the OP, I can't imagine any reason mummies wouldn't think Duat still exists.

[Darksider]

Rabbit I am going to recommend you take a step back from the conversation and come back to it later. I don't wish to issue a thread ban and I don't want to see the current line of discussion between you and some others escalate. If the other users' comments bother you don't engage them, please report the post and move on.

[TyrannicalRabbit]

You can not take us seriously as much as you want. You are still making a problem out of a thing that is not a problem. At all.

No us involved just you. And no, it's still you engaging in that behavior. You took a comment, in reply to a speculation made by another that itself was not worded strongly about a teaser we were luck enough to get that involves texts you admitted yourself you have not read, whose(the reply) verbatim was, "to a small extent.". The rest being speculation on how other people could possibly feel, and decided to pounce and try to start an argument. I don't know you or your post history, so maybe arguments of Mage supremacy is a touchy subject for you. Regardless, as I don't use these forums to either heap abuse others, nor tolerate abuse from me. My suggestion would be that if that is how you react to small comments then maybe you need to reevaluate whether or not it's a subject you should engage in. While I've never involved myself in it, I've seen stuff like that arguing in the general ChofD section and WoD Edition wars and the sort of toxicity it engenders. So if I see that directed at me, I'm going to take appropriate action. You should really think about how you reply to that sort of stuff.

[ArcaneArts]

It's funny how saying something from a different perspective can completely change one's mind about something. Thumbs up, Arc

It's worth noting I have not read the era, so the only context I have here is Brookshaw. Which, admittedly, should be all the context you need.

[ArcaneArts]

Or it's a small side comment on a throwaway hint that DaveB was so kind to give us that vaguely references something we will get more information about once the actual book launches and I responded to one posters minor miss givings over this small bit of information by commenting on some of the reasons why some people might feel less comfortable with certain information than others. Generally when the response I see is "OMG STAWP talking about Mage primacy!" I'm pretty much not going to take you seriously.

You can not take us seriously as much as you want. You are still making a problem out of a thing that is not a problem. At all.

[reseru]

Like, the Arisen do not speculate that Aa'ru is part of the Supernal-they tell mages that the Supernal is A'aru and then more or less expect mages to adjust their understanding to fall in line with their cosmological truths. Mages may not do the exact opposite in kind, because mages are not their fanbase, but they definitely look at A'aru, squint, and go. "uh....I don't think you fully get what we're talking about."

It's funny how saying something from a different perspective can completely change one's mind about something. Thumbs up, Arc

[WelshBoi]

this has shaken my existence

what if when the Heretic journeyed to A'aru and found it "barren" it was because he'd bodily entered a realm of platonic symbols "stars"?

ooh interesting parallels in how the fallen reality forgets both archmages and mummys who reach apotheosis

[TyrannicalRabbit]

If you're going to take it seriously enough to draft a reply, you might do better to understand why we're all kind of sick of the thing that this line of discussion generally reeks of instead of concluding that an exhausted response to a sentiment of "having two different gamelines equate their respective Heavens with each other in the course of in-character speculative cosmology means subordinating the one that is not Mage to Mage because Mage is Mage and Mage has a nasty reputation among the fandom based on overzealous modeling and broad-scope power level" is unfounded.

Want to know what is exhausting, irritating and absolutely nuts? Drafting a reply of "For X reason, I can sympathize and understand a slight(very slight) reservation ANOTHER PERSON expressed about a random tease we were given for a book that isn't even out yet and getting back nothing but a reactionary disproportionate and unnecessary ranting about Mage primacy, being given to a person for whom Mage is easily their favourite game of the Big Three of the CofD era, followed closely by Mummy and Hunter. If such a small comment of sympathy with that garners that sort of vitriol my sympathetic side is sorry you've had to apparently engage in that many arguments on the internet about people's perception of Mage Supremacy. HOWEVER, the unsympathetic side of me doesn't give a damn and I will not put up with it your overzealous reaction that is the exact sort of "Let me read this in the most disingenuous way possible." reading of text that people have to constantly tell forum goers to NOT DO. What I will do is wait for the book to come out, read the Mummy section, expecting the same fine quality of writing I've got to experience with books from Deceived to the Mummy centric section of the Dark Eras book and after reading it make my own opinions of the material. None of which will involve wild ranting accusing everyone of Mage Supremacy arguments.

[Satchel]

Generally when the response I see is "OMG STAWP talking about Mage primacy!" I'm pretty much not going to take you seriously.

If you're going to take it seriously enough to draft a reply, you might do better to understand why we're all kind of sick of the thing that this line of discussion generally reeks of instead of concluding that an exhausted response to a sentiment of "having two different gamelines equate their respective Heavens with each other in the course of in-character speculative cosmology means subordinating the one that is not Mage to Mage because Mage is Mage and Mage has a nasty reputation among the fandom based on overzealous modeling and broad-scope power level" is unfounded.

[TyrannicalRabbit]

I don't see how the two most arrogant supernaturals having a pissing match over which of their grand celestial cosmologies bits is bigger than the other is a problem.

Like, the Arisen do not speculate that Aa'ru is part of the Supernal-they tell mages that the Supernal is A'aru and then more or less expect mages to adjust their understanding to fall in line with their cosmological truths. Mages may not do the exact opposite in kind, because mages are not their fanbase, but they definitely look at A'aru, squint, and go. "uh....I don't think you fully get what we're talking about."

This is not a supremacy issue either way-this is where the mysteries of Chronicles collide.

Or it's a small side comment on a throwaway hint that DaveB was so kind to give us that vaguely references something we will get more information about once the actual book launches and I responded to one posters minor miss givings over this small bit of information by commenting on some of the reasons why some people might feel less comfortable with certain information than others. Generally when the response I see is "OMG STAWP talking about Mage primacy!" I'm pretty much not going to take you seriously.

[ArcaneArts]

I'm just going to wait until I see the Dark Eras Companion before deciding what the nature of hesitancy on those possibilities with A'aru are from the fanbase, thanks.

I don't see how the two most arrogant supernaturals having a pissing match over which of their grand celestial cosmologies bits is bigger than the other is a problem.

Like, the Arisen do not speculate that Aa'ru is part of the Supernal-they tell mages that the Supernal is A'aru and then more or less expect mages to adjust their understanding to fall in line with their cosmological truths. Mages may not do the exact opposite in kind, because mages are not their fanbase, but they definitely look at A'aru, squint, and go. "uh....I don't think you fully get what we're talking about."

This is not a supremacy issue either way-this is where the mysteries of Chronicles collide.

[TyrannicalRabbit]

I feel it's worth pointing out that "the transcendent plane from which mages draw their power, which many Awakened spend much of their lives ultimately pursuing total residence within, is identified by the Arisen of the era with the transcendent plane in which souls who have surpassed the Law of Suffering may reside and above which the Scroll of Ages is written in starlight" is a lot less trivializing than "the Arisen's version of a rewarding afterlife can be reached by an obscure portal and might as well be the literal surface of a distant moon for all the cosmic significance it's afforded — a curiosity mentioned in the same breath as a weird gateway to the distortionary wall between the worlds of spirit and flesh."

Regardless of the factuality of this cross-identification, it's not the Arcadia Problem, where we have two places with shared terminology are markedly different in how accessible they are — it's WoD's Abyss Problem, where, as Stephen Lea Sheppard once put it, the primary alternative explanation to the places being related is that they're four separate infinite expanses of sense-blanking nothingness.

The worst it does for the Mage Supremacy Problem at a glance is that it makes it harder to draw a clear line between the descriptive interface of the Supernal and the Scroll of Ages, which would have been something groups would need to address anyway on account of how spellcasting works.

I'm just going to wait until I see the Dark Eras Companion before deciding what the nature of hesitancy on those possibilities with A'aru are from the fanbase, thanks.