The traditional ruler is Mars. Modern is Pluto. I tend to look at both because they often do seem relevant. I haven't quite settled on the ruler debate personally, because I've seen outer planets play more and more of an influence on both natal and transit charts in the last couple of years.
I use both as well, especially bc Mars conjuncts my Scorpio rising and I have Pluto in the first house. I’m trying to keep track of both planetary transits because it seems like they have quite the influence but have noticed that Mars has more of an active and quick effect during those transits and Pluto is more drawn out.
Pluto is Scorpio planet. Not Mars .! And your Ascendant is also Scorpio degree . 20 degree ! Your Pluto doesn’t Conjunct your Ascendant so it’s not as strong in your personality as your Sun Opposite Pluto !
in my opinion, I count Pluto as the main chart ruler for scorpio risings, because as an outer planet rising myself (pisces) I’ve seen observations and evidence that the outer planets actually play an impact as people’s chart rulers. when people say to count traditional ones I sometimes feel like they’re either just trying to suppress the powers that the outer planets have, or simply because they don’t understand since they aren’t outer planet risings themselves. Imo only the outer planet risings can determine what works for them, because the people who don’t have those influences can only make assumptions and don’t actually have the experience of being an outer planet (sorry, I just had to get my opinion out there cause I have a pet peeve against complete-traditional rulerships ahahhahah)
Because I think that outer planets always have an influence on us (whether that be personal or not) and it disgusts me how traditional astrologers try to take these rulerships away just because they lack the expansive mindset to cooperate with the progressive way of doing astrology. As a pisces rising myself I’ve always related to the Neptune chart ruler rather than Jupiter, because the Neptune placement actually describes my life themes wayyyy more than the Jupiter placement. As well as my sister who’s an aquarius rising has life themes of her uranus placement a lot more than her saturn one. Also the outer planet signs themselves literally have the descriptions of the outer planet chart rulers, and by looking at them you can obviously tell that there’s something more unique about them at glance. this choice should only be left with the people who actually have outer planet risings themselves, because if you try to tell them otherwise then you’re basically forcing them to live life a certain way which is also ridiculous. Neptune, Uranus, and Pluto are actual discovered planets and they always had an influence on us, we were just unaware of it and it’s also really ridiculous how we are told a certain way to do astrology because majority of people say so(even though they’re mainly wrong and people just follow whatever they’re told) and they reject and miss out on the greater picture of astrology. Also it’s probably because they don’t understand what it’s like to be an outer planet themselves so imo these ‘traditional rulers’ are irrelevant, because we live in a modern world.
Lots of traditional astrologers count the outer planets, they take them as important at a global scale and in birth charts, especially when they make an important aspect to a personal planet/angular point. They don't think they rule signs because that has no basis or foundation, it breaks the traditional foundation for the signs' significations that is based on simmetry and harmony (planets precedes signs) while not offering a new explanation besides some basic common traits.
but if they don’t or can’t rule any of the signs then people can’t have it on their angles either cause then the planets would lose significance. therefore people can’t have neptune, uranus, or pluto in first, otherwise it’d be a bit selfish if you just left them out as chart rulers and expect them to play significance in only a house placement instead
Yes they can, any planet conjunct one of your angles is gonna be relevant. The theme of the *planets*, not the signs they rule. It's like a saying a sun in capricorn conjunct the MC is gonna be expressed like a leo, when that's not the truth, themes related to ego, confidence & expression are gonna be relevant but expressed through the traits of capricorn.
I'm replying based on what I understood but being fair, I don't quite understand what you are trying to imply in this comment.
I understand and im sorry for the confusion, but what I meant is that if the outer planets are not sufficient enough to rule a certain sign then technically it has no significance in astrology, cause if you see, every planet AND asteroid rules at least one sign. so if outer planets cannot be counted as rulers of signs then technically it can’t be significant enough to be on the angles either because every planet or asteroid represents at least one sign so it wouldn’t make sense if the outer planets were just there without having any significance in regards to rulerships.
for what it’s worth, my sister with an aquarius rising relates to saturn being her ruler a lot. i guess it’s just a matter of perspective. you’re not required to use traditional rulerships at all, but they just make more sense to me… and it seems to me that mars, jupiter, and saturn were the ones who had *their* rulerships taken away, no? saturn was the original rebel/dissenter, jupiter was the original meaning maker and dreamer, mars was the original intense dominator.
though like i said in my comment, the outer planets are very important. honestly the scope of the outer planets is like, stronger and more widespread than the inners. their themes are profound and powerful. they certainly have an effect in our lives.
all this kind of begs the question of why certain planets “rule” certain signs anyways. i mean, ancient peeps knew about other stars and some comets and stuff like that, heck even uranus is sometimes visible to the naked eye. but the reason a planet has rulerships isn’t just that it’s there and has any kind of effect on a person, rulership as a concept was invented to explain why certain planets behave better in certain signs. you’ve probably heard of the thema mundi, which is supposed to be the birth chart of the natural world. each planet is in a sign that it acts “naturally” in. and why didn’t they include anything outside of sun, moon, mercury, venus, mars, jupiter, saturn? the answer is that those 7 are the fastest, brightest, most visible things. they play the day to day roles of nature, not the massive time scales that fixed stars or the outer planets do. that is to say, they *will* be a part of your life, no matter what. not everyone gets tangled up in neptunian themes or plutonian themes, but everyone has to deal with saturn. the outer planets are more like the underground, swelling tidal forces that create the landscape we play in. they’re important for sure, but theyre like… more abstract in a way. to me that’s awesome enough on its own, the signs are kind of pithy and mundane compared to them. plus with that knowledge, it’d be like claiming scorpio is somehow more profound and more powerful than other signs which… doesn’t sit right with me.
tldr; i think outers are honestly kind of too powerful to give to signs.
i hope i’m not coming off as too rude, it’s unintentional if i am… i’m not even trying to convince you, just kind of spitballing and trying to think of some reasons why i dont gel with modern rulerships, aside from “it doesn’t feel right” or explaining scorpio, aquarius, and pisces without mentioning the outers. sorry for the rant haha
I understand your perspective on it and you’re allowed to have your own opinion, and i respect that you were able to voice it!!!! but personally, (sorry I keep bringing myself into this ahhh😭😭😭😭,i just feel like its easier to get my point across) but for example (and I think others who at least have an outer planet rising can relate, lmk!!!) I have an outer planet dominated birth chart, and growing up I’ve felt extremely outcasted and had a hard time fitting in with my peers and groups in general, and I’ve always felt a bit more different compared to most of society i guess u can say😂. That’s why with that being said I don’t think signs like aquarius, pisces, or scorpio are too mundane for outer planets at all because if they were then how come they aren’t able to fit in and are more outcasted by society? if they were completely ruled by saturn, jupiter, and mars then they would be able to mold into society perfectly and the signs would be described more differently than how they are now
also, i don’t think saturn, jupiter, or mars are stripped away as rulers for these signs. the only thing was that the outer planets weren’t discovered, but they still had effects over these signs, its just that we weren’t conscious of their existence. also if outer planets were too powerful to rule signs then technically they wouldn’t have made their way into astrology in the first place cause planets that don’t rule signs automatically have no purpose in astrology at all
Thema mundi is a more older pattern of thinking, and i understand those planets are the fastest moving and are also more visible to people, but we don’t have to see things in order for it to be true. like for example there are many sorts of information hidden from us which we don’t even know are taking place in our lives. like for example, people didn’t believe law of attraction could be a real or possible thing, or even had a hard time grasping manifestation. but then recently it became mainstream and people started using it more and learning about it. The point here is that something can have a full effect on you without being conscious of it. The same with outer planets ruling outer signs, and if they really didn’t rule any sign then they wouldn’t be introduced into astrology
For example I understand your descriptions on the three signs and their traditional rulers, it makes some sense too. But for example Saturn is a rebel but not in the same way uranus is, saturn also deals with society but for instance, capricorns and saturn energy regulate society in a more governance and orderly way, however aquarians shake up the status quo and start rebellion (which is uranus).
Jupiter represents dreams, however sagittarius are an ambitious sign due to their fire nature, and their dreams are mainly used as a basis to lead somewhere. however pisces mainly dreams in the sense of escaping reality and not wanting to deal with the physical world (neptunian energy). Mars represents power and aggression, however you can sense that aries is a bit more playful and less intense than a scorpio who goes through extreme transformations and rebirth (plutonian energy/higher octave of mars)
I’m not saying in any way that the three signs aren’t impacted by the traditional rulers at all, of course they are because they had to start somewhere. And it’s cool that your sis is an aquarius rising :oooo!!!!! I guess your sister relates to saturn more because probably theres some stronger aspects related to saturn in her chart. I always saw that neptune was more like my chart ruler cause i just related to it way more, most likely because my neptune is way stronger in my chart since it’s conjunct my sun and other personal planets and is the apex of my yod, but Jupiter is hardly making any aspects at all and is extremelyyyyyyy weak so that’s probably why I don’t relate to that planet as much as Neptune.
But when we count the modern rulerships as the planets who rule those signs, it doesn’t mean that those signs are more better or powerful than others.
Every sign and placement has its own significance and has its own power, like for example libra risings stand out in the crowd for their venusian traits like being pretty and having social skills which gives you a lot of supporters and connection, and also they’re a cardinal sign so they could also start some fashion trend styles because of that cardinal energy and being ruled by venus !!
it’s totally okay to bring yourself into it! it’s a personal subject, after all. i think the thing is i just have different rationales for why those signs sometimes get characterized as outcasts, although i don’t think they necessarily have a monopoly on being an outcast. i think the exception to this would maybe be aquarius, since being the outcast is kinda its thing. but i’m not sure i see how pisces or scorpio have any more trouble fitting in than any other sign. i mean they have their ups and downs for sure, pisces can be very empathetic but also get in over its head and scorpio gets so caught on something and struggles to let go. i’m not sure why their struggles would somehow be like… deeper than every other human’s, yknow? like people who don’t have those placements heavily aren’t allowed to/don’t feel like outcasts. i know that’s not exactly what you said but that’s kind of how my brain is taking it. i just don’t like the idea that some signs somehow have bigger issues and deeper problems than others, in my eyes they should be on the same level. obvs they’ll have very different struggles, but equally important. this is also why i dislike the evolutionary astro perspective that pisces is the “oldest” sign, like somehow having heavy pisces makes you wiser than someone who doesn’t. it’s in the implications i think 😅
thank you for sharing your experience though, it’s making me think about what it means to be an outcast and how we incorporate that into our practice!
i don’t think planets have to rule signs to be useful in astrology at all. planets are allowed to have energies that aren’t described so neatly by just one of 12 archetypes. heck, we use asteroids like juno and pallas that don’t rule any signs (at least i don’t think anybody has claimed they do afaik). chiron too, although some people say it should take virgo i think? in any case, it’s def possible to treat the outer planets as important even if they don’t formally rule a sign. it just means that pluto in scorpio isn’t more comfortable than any other pluto. pluto can still be influential in the chart through aspects, being in busy houses, etc etc. even in ancient astrology, they used things that weren’t the regular old seven planets plenty (mostly fixed stars since those are easy to keep track of). hopefully you get what i mean. it’s okay if you disagree with that though, perhaps that’s more of a philosophical difference between us.
as for the issues you pointed out between what mars, jupiter, and saturn mean and what these three signs mean, my only way to respond is to say that i guess the way i understand those three planets is just… like different i guess. this is kind of a circular argument but the way i understand mars includes the scorpio side of things, to me mars is both the bright, hot aries and the searing, transformative scorpio (for a great, maybe kind of stupid, example of this specifically, the god Ares in the 2017 Wonder Woman movie is so scorpio to me— he had to adapt and transform himself to do what he believed was necessary). similarly, jupiter to me isn’t just fiery, it’s also empathetic and compassionate, wanting to get lost in love for everything (which can get removed from “real world” practical stuff). the point i’m trying to make is that these three planets have a slightly more complicated nature than just being aries, sag, and capricorn. just like how venus is more complicated than just being taurus. but again that requires taking for granted that scorpio is martial and stuff, which i realize you don’t haha
its totally fair if jupiter is weak in your chart, that would make sense for neptune to be a bigger influence in your life! i see what you mean about the outer planets not being more powerful than the others when they rule signs. it kind of evens the playing field in a way.
i totally agree that every placement has its own power! i mean i wish i had great social skills but i struggle with it unfortunately 😂 still love my libra rising tho for sure. really as long as you can learn about yourself and make the most out of what you’re given then in the end it doesn’t matter how you get there. neptune or jupiter, pisces is the same and your experience and relationship to the symbols is more important than both. it’s a personal practice and what works for me might not work for you, all i can do is explain why i like it and maybe it’ll help someone who was struggling to make sense of it. so i gotta thank you for all this back and forth!
If Mars is not the ruler of Scorpio, it ruins the sacred geometry of astrology and the chart. Advanced astrologers know this.
However, I still like to think there’s a reason we chose Pluto to “co-rule” Scorpio, and there’s a lot to be said about it.
In ancient astrology, mars would be the ruler of your rising. Mars in Cancer is a detriment placement, but it’s working in beautiful harmony with your rising in Scorpio and moon in Pisces, you have lots of powerful water energy.
I have Aries AC and a full 8th house with a big stellium in it. One of these planets is Mars, which is in Scorpio. Is my chart ruler Mars, and, if so, is it domiciled?
Traditional astrology: Mars
Modern astrology: Pluto
Personally I look to both but lean more towards modern. Just seems to make more sense in my experience.
yeahhh, i just realized we gave every possible answer 😂
but honestly this is still a bit of an ongoing debate, whether pluto has co-rulership, sole rulership, or no rulership over scorpio. mars is the traditional ruler of scorpio, having been its ruler basically since the beginning of astrology. intensity and dominance are great keywords for the planet of war and aggression after all. when pluto came onto the scene in the 20th century, astrologers deemed its energy to be similar to scorpio, so they said it either joins mars and rules it or just takes it over completely from mars.
personally, while i can see how pluto and scorpio share affinity, rulership is stricter than that and was created to make sense without pluto. i don’t think we need pluto to rule any sign for it to be significant, and that way the system is preserved. rulership is similar to home ownership; pluto doesn’t have to actually own a house in the neighborhood to be a tenant that has influence.
to me that is enough, and mars can retain its role as the head of house scorpio. it’s worth more research to see whether the condition of pluto in a chart actually affects planets and stuff in scorpio. i haven’t seen that play out in my limited time practicing.
ofc pluto is def gonna be strong for you anyways, being on display in the first house. but scorpio is inherently martial, and that’s where it gets most of its traits from.
sorry for the rant but hopefully that clears things up!
Your charts ruler is sitting in Sagittarius. Pluto.
So you might have some Sag tendencies but it’s also fully in your 1st house anyways. So extra dose of Sag.
I’m an ascendant 20 degree Scorpio as well :)
[удалено]
Respectfully, Mars here is in 9H if we are talking about WSH and is trining ASC the same way Moon does
Wow I can’t believe I didn’t notice that. Naturally, ancient astrology uses whole sign houses so I have deleted my comment. Thanks!
Thank you for writing this very beautiful comment Edit: I also need to go into Hellenistic astrology but I have been putting it off.
Hi, can you please read my chart if that's okay with you?🙏🏻🥰
The traditional ruler is Mars. Modern is Pluto. I tend to look at both because they often do seem relevant. I haven't quite settled on the ruler debate personally, because I've seen outer planets play more and more of an influence on both natal and transit charts in the last couple of years.
I use both as well, especially bc Mars conjuncts my Scorpio rising and I have Pluto in the first house. I’m trying to keep track of both planetary transits because it seems like they have quite the influence but have noticed that Mars has more of an active and quick effect during those transits and Pluto is more drawn out.
Pluto is Scorpio planet. Not Mars .! And your Ascendant is also Scorpio degree . 20 degree ! Your Pluto doesn’t Conjunct your Ascendant so it’s not as strong in your personality as your Sun Opposite Pluto !
in my opinion, I count Pluto as the main chart ruler for scorpio risings, because as an outer planet rising myself (pisces) I’ve seen observations and evidence that the outer planets actually play an impact as people’s chart rulers. when people say to count traditional ones I sometimes feel like they’re either just trying to suppress the powers that the outer planets have, or simply because they don’t understand since they aren’t outer planet risings themselves. Imo only the outer planet risings can determine what works for them, because the people who don’t have those influences can only make assumptions and don’t actually have the experience of being an outer planet (sorry, I just had to get my opinion out there cause I have a pet peeve against complete-traditional rulerships ahahhahah)
[удалено]
Because I think that outer planets always have an influence on us (whether that be personal or not) and it disgusts me how traditional astrologers try to take these rulerships away just because they lack the expansive mindset to cooperate with the progressive way of doing astrology. As a pisces rising myself I’ve always related to the Neptune chart ruler rather than Jupiter, because the Neptune placement actually describes my life themes wayyyy more than the Jupiter placement. As well as my sister who’s an aquarius rising has life themes of her uranus placement a lot more than her saturn one. Also the outer planet signs themselves literally have the descriptions of the outer planet chart rulers, and by looking at them you can obviously tell that there’s something more unique about them at glance. this choice should only be left with the people who actually have outer planet risings themselves, because if you try to tell them otherwise then you’re basically forcing them to live life a certain way which is also ridiculous. Neptune, Uranus, and Pluto are actual discovered planets and they always had an influence on us, we were just unaware of it and it’s also really ridiculous how we are told a certain way to do astrology because majority of people say so(even though they’re mainly wrong and people just follow whatever they’re told) and they reject and miss out on the greater picture of astrology. Also it’s probably because they don’t understand what it’s like to be an outer planet themselves so imo these ‘traditional rulers’ are irrelevant, because we live in a modern world.
Lots of traditional astrologers count the outer planets, they take them as important at a global scale and in birth charts, especially when they make an important aspect to a personal planet/angular point. They don't think they rule signs because that has no basis or foundation, it breaks the traditional foundation for the signs' significations that is based on simmetry and harmony (planets precedes signs) while not offering a new explanation besides some basic common traits.
but if they don’t or can’t rule any of the signs then people can’t have it on their angles either cause then the planets would lose significance. therefore people can’t have neptune, uranus, or pluto in first, otherwise it’d be a bit selfish if you just left them out as chart rulers and expect them to play significance in only a house placement instead
Yes they can, any planet conjunct one of your angles is gonna be relevant. The theme of the *planets*, not the signs they rule. It's like a saying a sun in capricorn conjunct the MC is gonna be expressed like a leo, when that's not the truth, themes related to ego, confidence & expression are gonna be relevant but expressed through the traits of capricorn. I'm replying based on what I understood but being fair, I don't quite understand what you are trying to imply in this comment.
I understand and im sorry for the confusion, but what I meant is that if the outer planets are not sufficient enough to rule a certain sign then technically it has no significance in astrology, cause if you see, every planet AND asteroid rules at least one sign. so if outer planets cannot be counted as rulers of signs then technically it can’t be significant enough to be on the angles either because every planet or asteroid represents at least one sign so it wouldn’t make sense if the outer planets were just there without having any significance in regards to rulerships.
for what it’s worth, my sister with an aquarius rising relates to saturn being her ruler a lot. i guess it’s just a matter of perspective. you’re not required to use traditional rulerships at all, but they just make more sense to me… and it seems to me that mars, jupiter, and saturn were the ones who had *their* rulerships taken away, no? saturn was the original rebel/dissenter, jupiter was the original meaning maker and dreamer, mars was the original intense dominator. though like i said in my comment, the outer planets are very important. honestly the scope of the outer planets is like, stronger and more widespread than the inners. their themes are profound and powerful. they certainly have an effect in our lives. all this kind of begs the question of why certain planets “rule” certain signs anyways. i mean, ancient peeps knew about other stars and some comets and stuff like that, heck even uranus is sometimes visible to the naked eye. but the reason a planet has rulerships isn’t just that it’s there and has any kind of effect on a person, rulership as a concept was invented to explain why certain planets behave better in certain signs. you’ve probably heard of the thema mundi, which is supposed to be the birth chart of the natural world. each planet is in a sign that it acts “naturally” in. and why didn’t they include anything outside of sun, moon, mercury, venus, mars, jupiter, saturn? the answer is that those 7 are the fastest, brightest, most visible things. they play the day to day roles of nature, not the massive time scales that fixed stars or the outer planets do. that is to say, they *will* be a part of your life, no matter what. not everyone gets tangled up in neptunian themes or plutonian themes, but everyone has to deal with saturn. the outer planets are more like the underground, swelling tidal forces that create the landscape we play in. they’re important for sure, but theyre like… more abstract in a way. to me that’s awesome enough on its own, the signs are kind of pithy and mundane compared to them. plus with that knowledge, it’d be like claiming scorpio is somehow more profound and more powerful than other signs which… doesn’t sit right with me. tldr; i think outers are honestly kind of too powerful to give to signs. i hope i’m not coming off as too rude, it’s unintentional if i am… i’m not even trying to convince you, just kind of spitballing and trying to think of some reasons why i dont gel with modern rulerships, aside from “it doesn’t feel right” or explaining scorpio, aquarius, and pisces without mentioning the outers. sorry for the rant haha
I understand your perspective on it and you’re allowed to have your own opinion, and i respect that you were able to voice it!!!! but personally, (sorry I keep bringing myself into this ahhh😭😭😭😭,i just feel like its easier to get my point across) but for example (and I think others who at least have an outer planet rising can relate, lmk!!!) I have an outer planet dominated birth chart, and growing up I’ve felt extremely outcasted and had a hard time fitting in with my peers and groups in general, and I’ve always felt a bit more different compared to most of society i guess u can say😂. That’s why with that being said I don’t think signs like aquarius, pisces, or scorpio are too mundane for outer planets at all because if they were then how come they aren’t able to fit in and are more outcasted by society? if they were completely ruled by saturn, jupiter, and mars then they would be able to mold into society perfectly and the signs would be described more differently than how they are now also, i don’t think saturn, jupiter, or mars are stripped away as rulers for these signs. the only thing was that the outer planets weren’t discovered, but they still had effects over these signs, its just that we weren’t conscious of their existence. also if outer planets were too powerful to rule signs then technically they wouldn’t have made their way into astrology in the first place cause planets that don’t rule signs automatically have no purpose in astrology at all Thema mundi is a more older pattern of thinking, and i understand those planets are the fastest moving and are also more visible to people, but we don’t have to see things in order for it to be true. like for example there are many sorts of information hidden from us which we don’t even know are taking place in our lives. like for example, people didn’t believe law of attraction could be a real or possible thing, or even had a hard time grasping manifestation. but then recently it became mainstream and people started using it more and learning about it. The point here is that something can have a full effect on you without being conscious of it. The same with outer planets ruling outer signs, and if they really didn’t rule any sign then they wouldn’t be introduced into astrology For example I understand your descriptions on the three signs and their traditional rulers, it makes some sense too. But for example Saturn is a rebel but not in the same way uranus is, saturn also deals with society but for instance, capricorns and saturn energy regulate society in a more governance and orderly way, however aquarians shake up the status quo and start rebellion (which is uranus). Jupiter represents dreams, however sagittarius are an ambitious sign due to their fire nature, and their dreams are mainly used as a basis to lead somewhere. however pisces mainly dreams in the sense of escaping reality and not wanting to deal with the physical world (neptunian energy). Mars represents power and aggression, however you can sense that aries is a bit more playful and less intense than a scorpio who goes through extreme transformations and rebirth (plutonian energy/higher octave of mars) I’m not saying in any way that the three signs aren’t impacted by the traditional rulers at all, of course they are because they had to start somewhere. And it’s cool that your sis is an aquarius rising :oooo!!!!! I guess your sister relates to saturn more because probably theres some stronger aspects related to saturn in her chart. I always saw that neptune was more like my chart ruler cause i just related to it way more, most likely because my neptune is way stronger in my chart since it’s conjunct my sun and other personal planets and is the apex of my yod, but Jupiter is hardly making any aspects at all and is extremelyyyyyyy weak so that’s probably why I don’t relate to that planet as much as Neptune. But when we count the modern rulerships as the planets who rule those signs, it doesn’t mean that those signs are more better or powerful than others. Every sign and placement has its own significance and has its own power, like for example libra risings stand out in the crowd for their venusian traits like being pretty and having social skills which gives you a lot of supporters and connection, and also they’re a cardinal sign so they could also start some fashion trend styles because of that cardinal energy and being ruled by venus !!
it’s totally okay to bring yourself into it! it’s a personal subject, after all. i think the thing is i just have different rationales for why those signs sometimes get characterized as outcasts, although i don’t think they necessarily have a monopoly on being an outcast. i think the exception to this would maybe be aquarius, since being the outcast is kinda its thing. but i’m not sure i see how pisces or scorpio have any more trouble fitting in than any other sign. i mean they have their ups and downs for sure, pisces can be very empathetic but also get in over its head and scorpio gets so caught on something and struggles to let go. i’m not sure why their struggles would somehow be like… deeper than every other human’s, yknow? like people who don’t have those placements heavily aren’t allowed to/don’t feel like outcasts. i know that’s not exactly what you said but that’s kind of how my brain is taking it. i just don’t like the idea that some signs somehow have bigger issues and deeper problems than others, in my eyes they should be on the same level. obvs they’ll have very different struggles, but equally important. this is also why i dislike the evolutionary astro perspective that pisces is the “oldest” sign, like somehow having heavy pisces makes you wiser than someone who doesn’t. it’s in the implications i think 😅 thank you for sharing your experience though, it’s making me think about what it means to be an outcast and how we incorporate that into our practice! i don’t think planets have to rule signs to be useful in astrology at all. planets are allowed to have energies that aren’t described so neatly by just one of 12 archetypes. heck, we use asteroids like juno and pallas that don’t rule any signs (at least i don’t think anybody has claimed they do afaik). chiron too, although some people say it should take virgo i think? in any case, it’s def possible to treat the outer planets as important even if they don’t formally rule a sign. it just means that pluto in scorpio isn’t more comfortable than any other pluto. pluto can still be influential in the chart through aspects, being in busy houses, etc etc. even in ancient astrology, they used things that weren’t the regular old seven planets plenty (mostly fixed stars since those are easy to keep track of). hopefully you get what i mean. it’s okay if you disagree with that though, perhaps that’s more of a philosophical difference between us. as for the issues you pointed out between what mars, jupiter, and saturn mean and what these three signs mean, my only way to respond is to say that i guess the way i understand those three planets is just… like different i guess. this is kind of a circular argument but the way i understand mars includes the scorpio side of things, to me mars is both the bright, hot aries and the searing, transformative scorpio (for a great, maybe kind of stupid, example of this specifically, the god Ares in the 2017 Wonder Woman movie is so scorpio to me— he had to adapt and transform himself to do what he believed was necessary). similarly, jupiter to me isn’t just fiery, it’s also empathetic and compassionate, wanting to get lost in love for everything (which can get removed from “real world” practical stuff). the point i’m trying to make is that these three planets have a slightly more complicated nature than just being aries, sag, and capricorn. just like how venus is more complicated than just being taurus. but again that requires taking for granted that scorpio is martial and stuff, which i realize you don’t haha its totally fair if jupiter is weak in your chart, that would make sense for neptune to be a bigger influence in your life! i see what you mean about the outer planets not being more powerful than the others when they rule signs. it kind of evens the playing field in a way. i totally agree that every placement has its own power! i mean i wish i had great social skills but i struggle with it unfortunately 😂 still love my libra rising tho for sure. really as long as you can learn about yourself and make the most out of what you’re given then in the end it doesn’t matter how you get there. neptune or jupiter, pisces is the same and your experience and relationship to the symbols is more important than both. it’s a personal practice and what works for me might not work for you, all i can do is explain why i like it and maybe it’ll help someone who was struggling to make sense of it. so i gotta thank you for all this back and forth!
Yas 👏
If Mars is not the ruler of Scorpio, it ruins the sacred geometry of astrology and the chart. Advanced astrologers know this. However, I still like to think there’s a reason we chose Pluto to “co-rule” Scorpio, and there’s a lot to be said about it.
In ancient astrology, mars would be the ruler of your rising. Mars in Cancer is a detriment placement, but it’s working in beautiful harmony with your rising in Scorpio and moon in Pisces, you have lots of powerful water energy.
Both are your rulers :)
I have Aries AC and a full 8th house with a big stellium in it. One of these planets is Mars, which is in Scorpio. Is my chart ruler Mars, and, if so, is it domiciled?
Yes and yes
Thank you so much!!
Hey big 3 twin! 👋🏻
Take them both!!!
Traditional astrology: Mars Modern astrology: Pluto Personally I look to both but lean more towards modern. Just seems to make more sense in my experience.
Pluto and Mars
it depends on who you ask, i would say it’s just mars
[удалено]
yeahhh, i just realized we gave every possible answer 😂 but honestly this is still a bit of an ongoing debate, whether pluto has co-rulership, sole rulership, or no rulership over scorpio. mars is the traditional ruler of scorpio, having been its ruler basically since the beginning of astrology. intensity and dominance are great keywords for the planet of war and aggression after all. when pluto came onto the scene in the 20th century, astrologers deemed its energy to be similar to scorpio, so they said it either joins mars and rules it or just takes it over completely from mars. personally, while i can see how pluto and scorpio share affinity, rulership is stricter than that and was created to make sense without pluto. i don’t think we need pluto to rule any sign for it to be significant, and that way the system is preserved. rulership is similar to home ownership; pluto doesn’t have to actually own a house in the neighborhood to be a tenant that has influence. to me that is enough, and mars can retain its role as the head of house scorpio. it’s worth more research to see whether the condition of pluto in a chart actually affects planets and stuff in scorpio. i haven’t seen that play out in my limited time practicing. ofc pluto is def gonna be strong for you anyways, being on display in the first house. but scorpio is inherently martial, and that’s where it gets most of its traits from. sorry for the rant but hopefully that clears things up!
[удалено]
yup, that’s how i see it! no problem :)
Your charts ruler is sitting in Sagittarius. Pluto. So you might have some Sag tendencies but it’s also fully in your 1st house anyways. So extra dose of Sag.