PDA

View Full Version : First there was A, then B, then C...



Bobbybobby99
2015-11-30, 02:00 PM
A creation story in progress.

In the beginning, there was A. A was the nothing, in direct opposition to the something; they did nothing, thought nothing, saw nothing, were nothing. They were not the void, and they were not not the void, and they were not not not the void, and onward no more and ever more.

Then there was B. B sprang into existence directly after A, because by being nothing, A had become something, and something is not nothing, and not not not nothing. Being something, B began (the root of the word) by naming itself (for it was an it was an it) B, and the entity that was not nothing and not not nothing A. Thus the not not not... void became a something.

A, by nature, was opposed to it's new state as a something, and too the existence of somethings in general, because it was opposed to everything but being opposed. Thus it wished nothing more than to be nothing. B, by nature, was opposed to the existing state of mostly nothing, and the producer and destroyer of nothing and thus everything. Because of these oppositions, the two began with the first thoughts; "I hate something" and "I despise nothing". Nobody knows which entity thought which thought.

In spite of the First Tension, niether entity wished to duel with something that held domain over it's polar opposite, and fled to opposite corners of the everything. In one corner, B created a plane, filled with it's very own essence of something. In the other, A destroyed the void in favor of a plane filled with it's non-essence, actively opposed to the contaminating essence of B.

By creating new planes to oppose each other, the two had interacted, and commingled some of their being and non-being. The entity thus born, in a fashion with parallels to modern birth, named itself C, to distinguish itself from it's parents. The interaction of something and nothing, to be and not to be, and the interaction of creation and the prevention of creation, had created an entity of Stasis, and The Unchanging.

This agitated B, and made A unsettled, for there was now something which would oppose any attempts to make more somethings, and would also prevent the destruction of somethings. Each believing the other responsible, and further defined by new existence, they clashed, and reached beyond the planes they had created. B tried to create where there was nothing, and A destroyed that which was creating, so that there was an even balance of existence and non-existence, both meaningless by their lack of longevity.

Thus they created D, the opposite of C, who embodied Change, and Fluidity. This was their mistake, as D changed C, so that C could change things in an effort to move towards stasis. In return, C then imposed Stasis on D, B, and A, so that they could not redefine themselves.

enderlord99
2015-11-30, 02:43 PM
Do you mean "status" or "stasis" because "statis" isn't a word, or did you make up that word? In the latter case, what does it mean?

Bobbybobby99
2015-11-30, 02:49 PM
Stasis. I meant stasis. Goodness, I'll edit that in.

Bobbybobby99
2015-11-30, 07:53 PM
More creation story!

Thus, B, C, and D had been born, yet two more were to be formed from A and B before the Time was done. Shortly after D, entity of Change, was born, there was once more a shift in tone. Not not nothing could not stop, and this destructive cycle was swiftly heightening in pace. On went the randomized existence and non-existence, until C once more imposed Stasis. That was the Third Thought; "I dislike onething", and there was temporarily a complete stilling.

A and B did not care, having equal shares, but D, having solidified in intent, did. Thus came the compromise between movement, and stillness; everything would move at varying speeds at all times, yet, as everything was doing it, all would be static relative. A and B, for varying reasons, agreed; the entity of nothing did not not not desire conflict, and the entity of something desired peace.

Thus was born E, born from the First Agreement, embodiment of Moderation and Balance. Shortly after, A and B disagreed once more, on a trivial thing, breaking the First Peace and leading to a game of fleeting advantage and growth, with lesser degrees of variance between nothing and something. Subsequently came F, entity of Immoderation and Imbalance.

jqavins
2015-12-01, 01:38 PM
I wonder, is there something that can be explained about A? Because I don't understand. Perhaps it is because I am both metaphorically impaired and aspiritual, but it seems to me that if it is possible to say "A did this" then that very possibility means that A has been destroyed, like the old riddle about speaking the name of silence. If this just isn't meant for the likes of me then feel free to say so and I'll butt out.

Bobbybobby99
2015-12-01, 03:47 PM
Ah, but the A we speak of doesn't really do anything, they simply don't not do something, even if it's phrased more simply for convenience sometimes. :smallwink:.

jqavins
2015-12-01, 10:39 PM
Yeah, but... um... fergetit.

illazrion
2015-12-02, 11:38 AM
This is excellent (in best Monte Burns voice)

Draconi Redfir
2015-12-02, 12:03 PM
this is the strangest pantheon i've seen yet :smalltongue:

the_david
2015-12-02, 04:01 PM
That might be because of the names. I like it, it kinda reminds me of the abstract entities of the Marvel Universe.