/wbg/ - Worldbuilding General

File: lochelp.png (80KB, 886x419px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 886x419px

Ignoring the text (completely irrelevant to this particular question) where would a seedy, trade-rich harbor town spring up, assuming that trade could flow in any given direction?
,

>NZ Flag Proposal in OP

Worldbuilding?

>tfw learning plate tectonics just to make a realistic world

>>53106760
Where does the most sea trade pass through? Where does land trade go to port? The best way to figure shit out is ask questions like that.

>>53106760
What's the scale like?

And where the blue dot is, is that an island or an isthmus?

Either way, there's two good locations in the big bays, and one further in (with a couple more that would depend on scale), but it really depends on a lot of things like where the rest of goods are going to be coming from

>>53106760
Looks like the Gulf of Finland. Just put a not-Tallinn and not-Vyborg there.

>>53106739
In the western part of the continent there is a system where traders will frequently travel between villages and offer their services and move goods for people.


This has matured over time to where there are guilds and services that will work with traders to help people move packages. Combined with the fact that people will often hitch a ride with the traders as well they can become travelling handy men as well offering their talents while they are in town. The only people who tend to maintain physical locations in town would be the local merchants who request goods from the traders.

How come I've never seen this general before

Why is it on its way to 404ing

I'm working on a lightweight retrofuturistic cyberpunk setting centred in independent and corp-owned Hong Kong. Wireless information technology is all but non-existant, the city consists of mile-high super-skyscraper 'habs' with entire smaller cities inside. Upper levels are the wealthy, mid levels are the white-collar, low levels are the unskilled and the floor teems with drug addicts and criminals.

Setting priorities are Fun>Novel>Consistant>Realistic

Anyone got any Neat Shit I could add?

does any kind anon here have campaign cartographer 3 (and other profantasy software)?
if so,hook a niqqa up with a dl link

>>53107316
>tfw learning plate tectonics just to make a realistic world
You actually don't need to make a "realistic" world. In fact, "realistic world" is a pipedream. Your world is never going to be realistic.
What you may want to do is create a beliveable one. It's particularly important if you are making non-stylized maps, where poorly placed geography and horrible river placement can very easily shatter the suspension of disbelief and a lose the interest of your audience.

It's just always worth keeping in mind that whenever you aim for "realism" in world-building, it's never because you want to create a facsimile of real world. It's purely an aesthetic decision: it's because you want it to look in some specific way, not because your world "needs to be realistic". Realism, as a doctrine in fiction, is a lie. There is no such thing as realistic fiction - not in fantasy, or any other genre.

>>53109259
>How come I've never seen this general before
World-building generals have been around for at least two years. They are slower, usually live for several days but get bumped only once in a few hours. That does not mean that it's dying, merely that it's going through a slower phase.

As for your setup: without wanting to be insulting, it does sound incredibly generic. Which I guess might be the point, but it's a question how much actual world-building is necessary if you seem to be just following what is a popular and well-explored trope... There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing what has already been done (originality is as much of a myth as realism is), but it's a question whenever the same purpose would not be served by other means than world building, especially if you plan to write a novel there...

>>53109799
It's very much generic by design, I'm aping an established genre and tone, though doing so with more than a little parody.

It's for a single short campaign so I'm not looking for a large, flowing setting, what I'm fishing for are 'neat' ideas for shit to throw in to make players go 'huh thats kinda cool'.

File: nebula3.jpg (557KB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

557KB, 2560x1600px

Constructing a space fantasy campaign. It's very much like Spelljammer in that each system is contained in a crystal sphere, and is essentially it's own universe, with the main solar system and the stars fixed into the crystal shell that surrounds it.

Should I build it like a dungeon, with rooms being star systems and the hallways as the paths between them? I can develop systems fairly rapidly this way, but that leaves many systems that are empty and the systems that are populated have one major thing going on in them, and it removes a certain variety like geocentric systems. This method also gives me planets in the vein of Star Wars.

The alternative is wholly constructing each individual system, but the method of doing so leaves them unpopulated until I put something there. This is much closer to the default method of generating systems in Spelljammer, with figuring out planet sizes and orbits, but leaves me with 5 types of planets with little variations. It also seems a bit inimical to the tone of the campaign I want, which is very cosmopolitan, the populations of thousands of spheres mixing in space. This method mechanically gives me fewer worlds but in greater detail, and slower development time.

Help?

>>53109799
Shut up, the only thing that matters is realism.

>>53107328
>>53107421
Went to sleep after posting, sorry

Not sure yet where land trade goes to port, etc., this is the first settlement i'm developing in the region and the other will be bound by this wrt trade

Roughly 11 miles per pixel, so a following posters gulf of finland startement was good for inspiration

Blue dot is an isthmus

How would I fit FTL/warp drive/interstellar travel into a dieselpunk world?

How many kingdoms are too many?
I've probably got 50+ named kingdoms and tribal groups between elves and men, not counting minor tribes and petty earldoms.

>>53113692
Actually how the fuck would I even get an internal combustion engine to provide thrust in space? Maybe just as a generator and use electric propulsion? But electric propulsion doesn't seem very dieselpunky

>>53110268
Any help here?

>>53113976
I would say go for the second method as the first method will result in boring systems that won't have much depth to them. They'll probably end up being like planets in Stargate where each planet has one thing going for it and it never really feels alive.

>>53113714
How big is the world and how good/bad are communications? How big is the average kingdom?

File: NovaRoyeaux.jpg (193KB, 1080x739px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 1080x739px

I'm trying my hand at crafting a modern-fantasy setting. I've got the magic bit sorted (more or less- mainly less, honestly), but the creatures are posing difficult. The implications are hard to reconcile with a world that is still recognizably similar to our own. Phoenixes, for example.

>Always on fire.
>Not impossible to kill, just a pain in the ass.
>Eventually comes back unless you scatter the ashes really far or some shit.

Simple stuff, right? Except being always on fire is going to take a ridiculous amount of calories. So you either get massive, gluttonous, flaming fowl ravaging every cornfield in Iowa, or a very serious pest that rips into everyone's trash. It also makes them a good power source. Presumably the eternal conflagration produces heat, so you lock a Phoenix in a cage and wrap the cage in water pipes, ta-da, magitek nuclear reactor.

TL;DR: I need help dealing with magical creatures. Alternatively, I need more magical creatures that would make modern life problematic.

File: Rakhbo.png (54KB, 432x446px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 432x446px

>>53106739
Does someone know of a good resource for making flags/heraldry/crests and stuff like that?

I've been using this site lately as it's the best one I've seen by far. But it got some limitations and it's completely useless if you're not gonna draw your inspiration from medieval knights.

http://rpg.uplink.fi/heraldry/

>>53114249
Why not just make them a fire elemental thing that lives in fire

>>53114249
Yeah, no offense, but you are really doing it wrong. You are mixing together speculative and symbolic fiction in a really inexpert and pointless fashion. You are counting CALORIES? On a fucking Phoenix?
Is it fantasy, or is it sci-fi? Is it mythological and symbolic, or is it speculative? You have to clear that out, you have to figure out what you are going for. If you want Phoenix, a creature that comes alive when killed and is consistently on fire, then your world has to be driven by other logic than physiology of metabolism and calorie consumption. That is just completely stupid, it just does not make any sense, fiction wise.

Phoenix is a SYMBOLIC creature. It exists because it represents combination of multiple abstractions, sentiments or intuitions people used to have about the world. And it plays SYMBOLIC role in stories.

You have to chose if you story is going to be based on symbolic logic, or causal, speculative logic. You can't do both. It's just not going to work - not only because you are going to run into constant contradictions, but also because its going to make an incoherent and meaningless narrative.

File: banner2.png (23KB, 236x388px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 236x388px

>>53114264
http://inkwellideas.com/coat_of_arms/
Great for heraldry.

>>53114429
I can't get to make it work. Can it be because it uses java and I'm using chrome?

File: map2.jpg (2MB, 5000x3750px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5000x3750px

>>53106739
>Describe the most basic facts of an economy in your setting. What (if applicable) currency does it use, and why? How would one get rich? What resources are most valuable in terms of profit vs. effort?

A lot of it works like it does in every setting, there are blacksmiths and woodcutters, foremen and carpenters, miners and jewelers, all selling their goods for as much as they can in the neverending stairway to being 'richer'

Other places trade earlobes and pickled eyes.

>>53115710
what's the significance of the giant blue meteor thing?

>>53115818
The site of a big fuck off magical event, a lot of people think its the source of all magic.

>>53114102
World is 3-4 times the size of Europe. Local communication is good in developed areas, but breaks down across continents. Most humans in the west know almost nothing about the elves in the east, other than rumors and superstition. Bigger kingdoms are around 2 mil (going off medieval Europe numbers) while small ones or tribes can be anywhere from a million to only a hundred thousand.

>>53115710
thats pretty kickass, how much time has that map taken? do you expect to spend much more time on it?

>>53116274
3/21/15

Thats the date of the original sketch

this might just be the halfway point, who knows?W?WW?

>>53116085
Why weren't the smaller entities absorbed by the bigger and more sophisticated ones? Why didn't the more advanced places influence (wilingly or not) the less advanced ones, making them more prone to become big and unified?

50+kingdoms is quite a lot if there's good communication between kingdoms. Pre-industrial kings want to rule and will do so if they can. If the smaller political entities can be found on isolated places then it makes more sense that the bigger and more sophisticated powers won't bother with them too much.

>>53116553
halfway? it seems almost complete, impressive, nevertheless

>>53116665
Um... have you ever opened a historical atlas in your life?

>>53116085
50 kingdoms for a setting 3/4x Europe is not too many. When it comes to smaller bodies like tribes, semi-independent territories etc... it's actually still pretty sparse.
But really, the main question should not be "how many kingdoms should there be (shoudn't that constantly change anyway) but rather "how great fidelity should I use in distinguishing individual political and cultural bodies". Because a kingdom is usually a fairly arbitrary and abstract line anyway.

Personally, I prefer to avoid making complete list of political bodies, and prefer to create more dynamic, rougher structures or tendencies and then break them down into smaller constitutents and specific configurations for each specific time period I might need to explore in greater details.

>>53116816
still got those other two continents andI think my arstyle has changed to where I'm going back from the ground up almost

>>53116893
I wasn't able to tell any dramatic changes in the art style. I'd love to see more of the geography, maybe even some labels for continents and cities. Have you thought about working on the less detailed areas, then going back to update the older sections?

>>53117102
thats what I generally do, I started this jungle because I wanted to be fresh for the wine-country int he amber field area to the northwest of it
didn't want to go from one countryside to another, so I went from countryside to jungle to wine-countryside

>>53116862
>Um... have you ever opened a historical atlas in your life?

Communications were extremely bad in most periods of history. Anon has explicitly said that's not the case unless I haven't understood what he means by "Local communication is good in developed areas".

>>53115710
what program?

>>53117299
paint tool sai

>>53116862
>dynamic, rougher structures or tendencies and then break them down into smaller constitutents and specific configurations for each specific time period
Can you give an example?

>>53117392
>>53117274
I just uninentionally ingsted sometthing else than I probably want to take. Soo. Right mow thhings are getting really weird to me. I'm not even sure if I shoud continue communication here or rathe jst leafe it.
Seriously this is weird, Fun but really weird. If I don't die, I should realy chek back at the person who game me this stuf.

>>53117706
wat

>>53117959
Sorry, to clarify. I just took a pill that normally should have not made me trip balls, but it making me trip balls. I'm sure it's just a temporary thing

>>53118087
Take the chance to write a book or something. It worked for Aleister Crowley.

>>53118105
It was a sleeping pill. I can barely type and I think I'll pass out peacefully in the next few minutes. Plus, I have quite a lot of writing material even without this. So far it's not giving anything plot-worthy. Just the screen is suddenly out of paper, and the Quick reply window appears to be a box made out of thin fabric gently waving in the wind, and there are little people in it, carrying the letters I type and imprinting it into the fabric. And there is blood splitting every time I make a typo.

bump for weed r

So I want one of the nations in my setting to have grown in an area that was surrounded with dangerous monsters, which prevented them from interacting with the rest of the world till they killed said dangerous monsters. Now, the issue is that I don't know how to explain how they ended up in that place surrounded by dangerous monsters.
Any ideas?

File: TheWasteland (7).pdf (215KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 1x1px

Okay guys, I need you to get into this setting for me. I made it as this sort of ... just, weird world, but not too weird. I used to play a lot of Garry's Mod while listening to BvDub and other really ethereal mystical sounding ambient music. See video below for a lot of what I would do. It was comfy as hell for some reason.

https://streamable.com/lb8cs

But anyway, a couple years ago I started running a post-apocalyptic campaign, pretty basic generic world, but without any fallout influence because I've never played fallout. I've been told it's a bit similar to Stalker or Metro 2033 but I've barely played those games so I couldn't say for sure. I just want to convey this feeling of unease, like some just plain freaky or unsettling monsters, effects (like a bus randomly sprouting legs and coming to life, or a rift to nowhere opening suddenly).

I don't know, I have this strong feeling for the world I want to create but I don't know how to put it on paper without droning on endlessly. I also plan to make one of these for Maine rather than Russia, with cozy lighthouse fortresses watching the sea, monsters hiding in the alpine forests, haunted acadia, that kind of shit.

But yeah, just give me your thoughts. It's meant to be a "soft" document that outlines some factions and creatures but doesn't really give specifics on locations or anything.

File: 20170501200413_1.jpg (158KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1600x900px

I should add, I did run the campaign in that world for a little while, it's still alive technically, just on hiatus because my group cycles through campaigns kind of weirdly. But the first adventure was them going into the ruined city to get medicine from a hospital, getting into a fight with the people who lived in the hospital, capturing their leader who was a River Tam ripoff, and then things went a bit weird, but there was a cult looking for her because her "powers" could allow them to make contact with their god. And I was planning this ritual where I'd describe all kinds of weird shit but never explain any of it, i don't even know the explanation myself, the idea is just to evoke this sense of strangeness and mystery that I get sometimes about the world, it gives me feels. I did a good job conveying that feeling once in a separate campaign but this one is the one where I really want to drive it in.

Anyway, enough aspergers rambling from me.

File: Cosmo.png (33KB, 777x777px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 777x777px

What do you think of this cosmological model?
Basically there are the planes of conjunction that are the easier to access from the material plane because, well, they're "joined" in a non-physical fashion since they share much of their contents although the material realm is the center where everything is more balanced of course. Each plane has subplanes that have a variety of "themes", especially those attached to other planes are considered equally existing in both, in a sense even those joined to the physical realm are "part" of it although in a non-physical way.
The rest of the planes are harder to get to since they are far away from the material but through a lot of travel it is possible even if risky due to the denizens of the Soulsteppes.
Alternatively there are a few portals in the right planes of conjunction, which are "closer" to them spiritually (Realm of Decay>Byduria or Odran'Pa etc., each has at least one plane more easily reachable due to their similar nature.
Then there is Aeidiggeon which is an everchanging plane which holds all the four elements conflicting with one another and is the only one not static moving though the Soulsteppes, getting into the planes of conjunction's domain and changing them with it's passage.
The external of the sphere is called the Unknowable Reaches and is an uncreated storm of possibilities, a boiling cauldron from which everything came to be. The only "real" thing in the Unknowable is the Archive of the Ages, a library containing all possible knowledge, including all the lives and thoughts of all the people who existed and will ever exist.
It's just a fast model I made so of course it's not perfect.

File: cosmology.png (202KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 800x800px

>>53121969
I like four realms overlapping like that. I like it better than the models in FR/etc., frankly.

Mine is bit more bare, with two opposing sources of creation in drifting consciousness of great beast, with deities creating physical world as barrier so spooky things from Sheol (life) doesn't get them.

>>53120788
Well, if magic/gods are thing, you can just argue that they were placed there, or monsters were placed around them - as a curse, perhaps? Or some unfortunate mishap brought their first settlers there (ex. very early ship was wrecked by monsters, and survivors got washed into the region)

>>53106739
>Describe the most basic facts of an economy in your setting. What (if applicable) currency does it use, and why? How would one get rich? What resources are most valuable in terms of profit vs. effort?
There are plenty of currencies, with western kingdoms/nations have usually different currencies from each other, either metal coinage or paper. Desw have no paper currency, but have very united currency and seals from theurgy. Some more remote areas don't have their own currencies.
As for resources or getting rich, I haven't thought of anything peculiar. The world was wrecked by some wars recently, so rebuilding effort probably is something that is booming.

>>53122987
>Well, if magic/gods are thing, you can just argue that they were placed there, or monsters were placed around them - as a curse, perhaps? Or some unfortunate mishap brought their first settlers there (ex. very early ship was wrecked by monsters, and survivors got washed into the region)
The only god in the setting isn't exactly a councious being so I can't use divine intervention, but I could say they ended up there after a ship wreck.
It also fits with my original idea of them being the former citizens of a powerful and ancient nation that went to shit after fucking with magic too much.
Thanks!

Have you ever thought of taking an existing setting and revamping it somehow?

I find that some anime introduce really interesting settings, but never delve deeper than what the plot requires or what is easiest to deliver to a general audience. Maybe that's with writers in general.

You could, of course, rip off a setting but steal most of its general ideas so you could do them your own way, which would probably be the best, but I feel that's kind of a copout solution.

Keep in mind I'm raving at two in the morning, so if the question's too autistic, disregard it.

>>53121969
>>53122987
Looks pretty good, spooby setting?
Also to add to my first post
I was thinking of killing off the Soulsteppes cause it's too similar of D&D's astral plane and maybe make the only means of travel to the external planes only through the conjunction planes.
Also the Mutable Palace is a huge palace existing in all the five planes contemporaneously that changes its rooms depending on the strengthening or weakening of the planes currents and can lead to many different places, supposedly even non-existing ones although its corridors are full of dangers and only the strongest of adventurer groups can hope to fight through it.
Maybe I'll put a version of the Soulsteppes that is cut out from the rest of the planes and acts as some sort of purgatory/limbo, where portals/magic acting wrong could land you.
I dunno, I know it's kinda generic but this is my second setting and I just started so there's certainly space for improvement.

>>53123247
Are you talking about actually rewamping the setting or just writing your own shit into the setting?

File: shuna_no_tabi_c05_sc_scans.shuna_no_tabi_c05p097.jpg (123KB, 728x1092px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 728x1092px

>>53123247
No, I think the question is very valid.
And yeah, my settings began basically as a repurposing/revamping/detailing existing settings, from a short picture book by Hayao Miyazaki called "Shuna's Journey". I found the settings and central plot themes depicted in the book absolutely amazing, but it contains very little actual world-building. So I essentially started expanding and inventing more detailed and consistent backstory and explanation for what that book depicts, eventually started adding entire new elements (much of which I borrowed from another Miyazaki's work, Naushicaa of the Valley of Winds).
Eventually the whole thing took on a life of it's own, additional inspirations from multiple different sources (mostly real-world cultures of Central Asia and Middle East) took over a lot of it... but still, it all started essentially as expansion and backstory for an already existing settings.

Nowdays, I deeply regret it though. I love the settings, I've put a lot of work into it, but I'm still consistently reminded that it's very core is blatantly derived from another man's fiction. I can't really remove these elements without basically throwing the entire fiction into the trash, but the unoriginal elements of it prevent me from using it for any other than purely personal purposes. I have a friend who suggested multiple times he'd like to use the settings as a background of a videogame he has been working on, and since I'm a writer I've been yearning to use it in some literary works, but Miyazaki-based elements in it make me really, really uncomfortable to use it in any public or commercial manner.

So yeah, I've done that, and I regret it.

File: Armstrong-profile-shot-0.png (563KB, 867x766px) Image search: [Google]

563KB, 867x766px

Can someone point me to some ressources regarding nanotech? Aside from reading wikipedia. Just want to get a general overview.

>>53124733
What overview do you expect, exactly? Nanotechnology is a label for all technology that relies on manipulation of matter in orders of nano-meters or smaller. There is nothing more to "generally overview" than there is to overview "macrotechnology". It's a broad as fuck category, especially when you include potential fictional applications.

>>53124758
Right, nanorobotics is probably what I'm looking for.

>>53110268
>>53113976
Personally, I would say detail out a few core systems and major players using the second method, then use something like the first to get a brief overview of other parts of the galaxy.

Basically, the way that I see it, colonization of other solar systems will usually start with those closer to where a civ starts; for example I don't think that, unless there are literally no other options to us, we'd colonize an earth-like planet on the other side of the milky way before getting a colony on one that's closer.

So you have these dense clusters around a central group of systems where a civ sprung up, with plenty of colonies and different political bodies, but the farther you go out you'll encounter emptier systems, ones that were only recently colonized and might only have a single planet and a few mining/ resource outposts on the other worlds in-system.

>>53106760
that looks like gibiltar/constantinopolis.

someone will build cities on the 2 coasts and will demand taxes and offer services to all the trade ships passing, that is 100% guaranteed.
i would probably expect all the small islands to be inhabited too since they can enjoy a good climate and fishing enviroment without the drawback of commercial isolation.
i expect cities on the passage to be the true winners of any trade in the zone, so other harbors won't be that successful.

local history can be shaped by wars for the control of the passage, which can be partially resolved by both coasts splitting the income from the tariffs.

as for the inner sea, given it's all so well connected, many cities could surface, mostly based on what the land nearby can produce and offer in trade.

>>53113714
>MiddleAgeEurope.world

>>53124935
Nearness of systems is strange in the case of Spelljammer, because it's rather indistinct on how close crystal spheres are to one another, and the paths between them. That's why I considered using the dungeon generation method, as each sphere would then be connected to at least 1d4 other spheres by currents, but then I get into things like temporary connections, or spheres that can still be reached but have no currents going to them. How do you determine things like that?

>>53113714

There's basically no limit to how many you could have, but there is a limit to how many you can expect the reader or participant to care about or be conscious of. Most people will not give a shit about the ten billion fiefdoms of Westeros, just the seven houses and then maybe the major 1-2 within.

That's why it's important to make sure that subdivisions of polities have an over-arching association that outsiders can refer to them by. Locrians, Athenians, Spartans, Messenians, Pylians, Cretans, Cypriots, Thessalians, Sicilians, Phocaeans, Leuctretians all exist but more often they will be dealt with as Ionians/Dorians/Aetolians/Achaeans, or dealt with as Greek.

Think of it as the "Franks rule" or "They're all Greek to me" rule. Outside of specific political circumstances a Muslim or Orthodox dealing with a Westerner didn't care if he was Norman or Provencal or Saxon or Lyonese or Vasconian or Burgundian or Lombard or Bavarian or Suabian or Bohemian. He was just a Frank.

Always make sure you have a good reliable over-arching ethnic group to group those various polities.

Just where did the whole idea of elves being really good archers from?

Is it all just down to Legolas in LotR? Because as far as I know, most legendary archers in mythology and fiction are just human, like Robin Hood and Odysseus.

What are some real life languages which lisp in their English accent? I've noticed it with Chinese people. I'm trying to find how a language should sound for its speakers to have a thick lisp when they try to speak English.

>>53127887
DnD basing their elves on the Sindar and Legolas, who are the woodnigger bowmen, instead of other elves like the Noldor.

>>53127887
It does boil down to the Tolkien tropes, who presumably chose bow for Legolas (and elves in general) for the same reason why bows are given so often to females to genre fiction: to reconcile frail, gracious constitution that does not seem well fit for violence with some form of violent activity. Bow allows you to look like you participate on the action, but avoids having to answer the difficult question of "that guy/girl looks like a twig, how comes he hasn't been snapped in half yet".

Sort of a more - hands-free type of combat.

In reality, it does not make much sense of course, because bows required considerable amount of physical strength to be operated. More than most melee weapons, in fact. The boy in Odysseus serves as test of physical strength.

What are some different human racial and ethnic groups you've created and what physical features do they have?

What's your opinion on mixing up fantasy races in a "country"?

For an easy example, let's just imagine you visit a village in medieval France. Most people in town are human, but a few hunters are elfish, and the human smith was taught how to do his craft by dwarves in the Alps. (Wild) Orcs are typically seen as bad news, unless they're from the martial families, orcs that have served as military servants to human chieftains since ancient times.

>>53129528
If this helps: There is nothing inherently wrong with it, though I think that it doesn't help the fantasy races and makes it more difficult for them to retain their own identity, which makes it harder to justify them being in this world in the first place. It's very excusable in big cities of importance or on the borders.

>>53127974
>It does boil down to the Tolkien tropes, who presumably chose bow for Legolas (and elves in general) for the same reason why bows are given so often to females to genre fiction: to reconcile frail, gracious constitution that does not seem well fit for violence with some form of violent activity
That doesn't make any sense considering how many elves died fighting in Beleriand. His elves were never frail anyway.

>>53127974
>The boy in Odysseus serves as test of physical strength.
Oh my.

>>53131443
>Oh my.
It's ancient Greece, the culture that invented the word "Pederast". What the fuck did you expect.

>>53131656
Homer pretty much avoids all that, even with the Achilleus/Patroklos thing.

File: FingolfinvsMorgoth.jpg (42KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 600x400px

>>53127974
Which is pretty stupid considering Tokien's elves were also excellent warriors.
Fuck, one of them 1vs1 frigging Morgoth and managed to severely wound him before dying. And he did this when Morgoth was almost at full power.

>>53131740
He's just stupid.

>>53131740
>>53131388
It's about aesthetic sensibilities rather than in-world logic. And admitedly, Tolkien was not quite as guilty of this as those who followed up on him. It's not about them not being strong enough to fight, but rather about the fact that for aesthetic reasons, the author wants to avoid the somewhat jarring visual imagery of them engaging in a melee fight: both because it may look odd - their physical description does not really fit the combat situation, and also to maintain the aura of being untouchable and above direct physical confrontation. Again: neither Tolkien, nor any of the thousand authors that adopted the same trope claimed that they CAN'T do it, but rather they just use various narrative and visual tricks to avoid showing/describing them in such scenario. Giving them bows instead of swords is one of such trick.

>>53131838
Says the person literally not understanding some of the most basic literary devices in the genre? Yeah.

>>53131847
Except Tolkien arguably showed the elves fighting in direct combats way more times than he showed them using bows.
It's just that Legolas is his most famous elf and he used a bow most of the time to add a little variety to a party made almost entirely of sword/dagger users. And if I remember properly he had a sword too.

File: Ted_Nasmith_-_The_Hill_of_Slain.jpg (43KB, 528x357px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 528x357px

>>53131847
>the author wants to avoid the somewhat jarring visual imagery of them engaging in a melee fight
Anon, you are a retard. Noldor clad themselves in full armor and fought with swords and spears in melee, and occasionally got massacred. Also consider what Tolkien himself wrote about Legolas:
>"He was as tall as a young tree, lithe, immensely strong, able swiftly to draw a great war-bow and shoot down a Nazgûl, endowed with the tremendous vitality of Elvish bodies, so hard and resistant to hurt that he went only in light shoes over rock or through snow, the most tireless of all the Fellowship."

>>53131900
He had a dagger.

>>53131900
Not in LotR, actually. Later, in Silmarilion, though he generally avoided direct descriptions of battle beyond a sort of an old epic/mythological tale style. Remember the elves that joined the battle in Helms Deep? Yeah, bowmen. Elves otherwise rarely feature in combat descriptions across LotR series. Hobbit mentiones them fighting, but again avoids details on purpose.
It's also well worth keeping in mind that elves themselves change radically across his various works.
It's also further well worth mentioning that the LotR books also often put a lot of emphasis on elves having unusually keen sight, the ability to move around extremely silently, move across tree-tops, stay perfectly hidden in the forest: further stressing out their proficiency at non-direct means of war.

>>53131962
Dude, can you NOT FUCKING READ? Who the fuck are you calling retard if you can't fucking read or put basic concepts together. I don't give a fuck that you don't like what I'm saying and need to lash out on principle, fuck off until you can act and think like an actual human being.

>>53132017
>Remember the elves that joined the battle in Helms Deep? Yeah, bowmen
That''s some shit added in the movie. There was literally one elf in Helm's Deep in the book.

>>53132017
It seems like you need to quit /tg/ for a while and read a book before running your mouth.

>>53132017
>beyond a sort of an old epic/mythological tale style
You need to read some old epics my dude.

>>53132164
I can pretty much assure you that I've done more of that already than you will ever in your life.

>>53132107
>and read a book
Says the person who literally cannot comprehend the difference between aesthetical literary tool and in-universe diegetic one? Are you fucking kidding me?

"BUT YOU ARE A RETARD BECAUSE ELVES ALSO USED OTHER WEAPONS, DURRR".
Yeah, fucktard. But the the author intentionally decides to put emphasis specifically on this element, because it helps to subtly build a certain aesthetic notion. You STILL had not even began comprehending that you cretin, so fuck off.

>>53132071
>>53132071
You are actually right on that, sorry about that. Then again, further emphasis on elves and archery happens right at the beggining of Fellowship (when Frodo meets the elves near Shire, when discussing if the elves could offer him protection from Nazguls, the elven leader says that he'd need a battalion of elven archers like in the ancient times, later in Lórien it's mentioned that it's a place where the very finest of the finest elven bows are made. Bows are also described as the primary weapons of guards both in Lorien and Mirkwood, if I remember correctly.

So yeah, at least in the trilogy, a lot of effort is made to stress bows above other weapons in connection to elves, and it's not only Legolas.

Arguing that the fact that they also use other weapons is about as logical as arguing that Tolkien did not also helped to popularize the mage staff stereotype, because of the fact that Gandalf actually wears and uses sword as a primary weapon.
He does, but for aesthetic reasons (both emphasis on age, traveling, and allusions to older mythological tropes), the staff is what ended up being most associated with Gandalf-derived image of a wizard.

>>53132250
But Homer and Beowulf and the Nibelungenlied and the Kalevala all have pretty direct descriptions of combat. Like I know you said "beyond" epic style, but that seems a bit strange to say unless you think an epic style isn't very direct.

>>53132311
You can throw around fancy words between capslock all you want, but Tolkiens elves were not frail, they were not weak. Read the description of Legolas again. He was an archer and Tolkien knew that archers needed to be strong. And the most noble and strongest elves have been depicted as fighting with close-combat weapons.

>>53132311
The aesthetic notion was "cunning woodsman" not "lithe qt trap".

>>53132410
>not frail, they were not weak.
God you are fucking retard, and I'm just sick of explaining the same incredibly simple concept over and over again. You are literally brain damaged and beyond any help. You literally cannot distinguish between aesthetical intention and diegetic (that is in-universe you fucking monkey) content. You LITERALLY CANNOT COMPREHEND that an author wants to describe one thing, but also creates an aesthetic impression that is slightly different. That your character can be in-universe strong, but as an author you might chose to use indirect tools to also add an impression of say, elegance and sophistication, by for an example, chosing to give him more indirect ways to still remain part of a battle.
That whole idea is fucking completely lost on you. And that is fucking sad. Can you now fuck off please?

>>53109799
I don't think you get the 'realism' approach it all.
It's not to create some "whooaaaaa this could be REAL LIFE DUDE!!!1!" reaction. It's to create a map that doesn't look like dogshit, and thus keeping the suspension of disbelief.

>>53132525
Lots of people do it for whooaaaa real life dude, anon.

Other than that he said what you said.

>>53132525
>I don't think you get the 'realism' approach it all.
I'm pretty sure that I get it, because you just literally said what I said. Like, basically you just quoted what I said, almost verbatim.

>>53132515
Can you write a single post without capslock? It doesn't help your argument. Alright, can you cite me some sources on what you are rambling about? That that was his intention? You already got the elves in the books wrong and seem to have never read the Silmarillion, so I'm excited to hear what you have to say about that.

>>53106739
Hey guys.

Just did an expansion to the /omg/ library y'all use.

Organized a fuckhuge folder about the rituals and practices from Peru to the Hopi (roundabouts, if I recall).

Update's in the usual thread on /x/. >>>/x/18983561

Thanks again for using the library.

>>53132667
Can you make a fucking point without desperately clinging to something completely unrelated to the subject matter?

>Alright, can you cite me some sources on what you are rambling about?
Sources? On basic literary interpretation? Do you want sources on the fact that sometimes a book can describe a character as a nice person and then reveal that he is not actually supposed to be liked by the author? This is not something that has academic literature on, this is something a twelve years old can figure out.

Fuck me: would you fucking argue that Tolkien did not intentionally make an image of fucking Gandalf as a weary old man leaning on his staff? Because he could take on a fucking Balrog with his sword: so totally, Tolkien never wanted a create an image of him as an old wise and weary traveler, and associate him with his staff despite the fact that Glamdring is a major deal for the character, and he actually uses it far more often than his staff? And that this set a precedence in which most fantasy fiction depicts its wizards with staffs and unable or rarely using swords?

God dammit what the fuck is wrong with you dipshit? This is really, really beyond belief.

>>53132762
At the moment I'm just enjoying your incoherent anger raging over my screen. So you got nothing. Great.

Was it autism?

>>53132823
Dude, when you clearly lose argument, just keep your mouth shut next time. This is far beyond sad, it's reaching inhuman levels.

>>53132762
Maybe because Gandalf intentionally made himself look like a weak old man who needed his staff. It's meant to come off as a surprise to the reader when he drops the act and starts fucking shit up.
This is not the case with the elves, who are shown from the very beginning as warriors who aren't afraid of a fight and can be hurt or murdered. Even before you meet Legolas, you hear about Gil Galad, who was a warrior through and through.
The closest thing Tolkien does to what you are saying is painting the elves as angelic and seemingly perfect being only for the Silmarillion to reveal that they are as fucked up as any other race.
The whole "elves are archers" trope comes from people who copied the most basic elements of Tolkien's writings.

File: 14333733_10209385733067983_4722037723471280691_n.jpg (49KB, 825x620px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 825x620px

>>53132837
The libraries, the weak settings, or the dumb arguments?

Y'know what? Never mind.

>See this map
>Look at my maps
>Cry
Damn I wish I had the skill to draw something like this on top of all the creativity.

>>53132844
At this moment you make it look like you are just doing it for my entertainment. Just read the books again, Silmarillion and the Lord of the Rings, to see how his elves really are. They are good books, sometimes dry reads. I like the Silmarillion more.

>>53132876
>Maybe because Gandalf intentionally made himself look like a weak old man who needed his staff.
Or maybe that was the impression the author intentionally persued? But why the fuck am I even wasting time on this shit. You may be legitimately, like clinically autistic. You seem to be entirely unable to comprehend text as having multiple layers, including formal ones introduced by the author. You literally can only think of the text on a diegetic level, which is hillarious considering that we are talking about fantasy, a genre that is entirely symbolic by nature. But symbols seem to be something eluding you folks completely.

File: 1442265604975.gif (1MB, 292x323px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 292x323px

>>53132961
Calm the fuck down mate, you're making an embarrassment of yourself
That's likely not even the same guy you're replying to

>>53132961
First, I'm not the guy you were talking to.
Second, it's really hard to see your point when all you do is whine like an autist and offer nothing to support your arguments beyond "t-that's totally what Tolkien meant, y-tou are just too pleb to see it"

File: a visit to wizardchan.jpg (135KB, 1200x881px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1200x881px

>>53132961
this is a wild thread

>>53115710
What program do you use and what brush settings? I've been trying to replicate the looks of your brush strokes for the continent outline but nothing I do looks even similar.

>>53134504
paint tool sai, the linework was all done with one of those grunge brushes so there are a lot of uncontrolled changes to line weight and stuff, plus a lot of tlc

File: sai_2017-05-08_18-39-07.png (7KB, 181x271px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 181x271px

>>53134798
here are the settings, but I've long lost where I got the actual brush from.

I think if you're really dedicated I can pull the specific blotmap probably, but you should experiment on your own at that point, be original

>>53134842
Thanks
I figured out something in PS that looks similar enough but it will take a lot of time for the outlines, I guess I'll just use my method as I don't want to be too much of a copycat.

>>53135097
Yeah, the coast forever, and its still getting updated as I retrace my steps adding stuff.

Use whatever method you want though, imitation is flattery and shit, I doubt anyone ITT is going to care, and nobody IRL will notice

bumbbbbb

File: economy.pdf (30KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 1x1px

>>53106739
whipped up a quick pdf describing the general economy/currency and exchange in one region of my world.

>>53136057
>Image of people bartering
wooooooooaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh

>>53136136
what did he mean by this?

>>53136373
see >>53136057
then >>53136136

bump!!!

File: 61 Independent Tank.jpg (329KB, 1600x969px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 1600x969px

whats a good place I can find for some art depictions of interwar or fantasy style tanks? Sort of like what you see in Valkyria chronicles if you ever played that. I need some for the late industrial era fantasy game I am working on. pic related

>>53121969
>>53123741
Alright, here's a description, what do you guys think

Kytrin, Realm of Greed

This is the plane where all those unfortunate souls concerned too much with material gains head to.
It doesn't really matter what people wanted, as long as what pressed them most in life was securing themselves material wealth, they will all end up here.
There are three different subplanes:
Israsea, the plane of Envy. Here are those whose main concern was what others had over them.
The impure thoughts of unjust inequity and pure rotten malice against their most fortunate fellows shape the realm in such a way that the surroundings are almost entirely full of dark colors.
Tendrils and tentacles spring from every shape to suck the life out of everything they touch. The earth is strangely beautiful and rich in grass and flowers, maybe an indication of the hidden narcissism most people with such a trait hold.
The penitents here are usually devoid of strength, as all they can think about is others. To this effect, flying monsters similar to bats but with a long trunk fly all day around them whispering of this and that thing they supposedly lack and continuously suck their surplus energy off until they're almost reduced to empty shells unable to prove even the lone sentiment they are there for.

>>53140419
Uobb is the realm gluttony. All those impure souls that only thought about filling their bellies while on Pagryston end up here.
The realm is unexpectedly pleasant and contrary to the other subplanes it smells of great delicacies from all over the world.
Mountains of sweets and waterfalls of chocolate, houses of sponge cake and benches of jellyrolls.
Giants made of caramelized nuts and other delicacies walk around the merry cities offering pieces of themselves to the denizens and even to visitors.
It is mostly a harmless realm outside of some invasions happening a century or so ago where the Sweetgiants, as they were later called by the terrified bystanders would invade a town in the north of Pagryston and filled the insides of their homes with cream from their huge pastry bags or caramelized roads and other oddities.
Trimaspir is the realm of usurpers, where those who tried, or even succeeded in taking a role that wasn't theirs are found.
The surroundings are similar to the ones in Israsea but a little on the brighter sides.
The fields are mostly normal like the ones in Pagryston.
The real peculiarity of this realm is in the creatures inhabiting it, weird hooded figures as tall as gnomes that steal the belongings of any visitor.
If they succeed in wearing any of his items, the Lifethieves, as they are known, turn into a perfect copy of said individual including most of his abilities.
They are said to be hurt badly if someone uses a mirror on them, reflecting their image.
Many ambitious people end up here, they usually try to mount attacks on Pagryston to conquer it all for themselves but fail miserably as they forget who they are every few minutes.

>>53127539
Right, I can see what you mean, there's no sense of near or far in the Phlogiston.

But the temporary connections and spheres thar are reachable but have no currents going into them are more of a narrative thing; they won't come up unless a character goes to them or something. They're more plot hooks than anything else, and should be used as such.

File: calemnos.jpg (647KB, 1920x1012px) Image search: [Google]

647KB, 1920x1012px

Bumping with new map. Dark green is wet, light green is grassy, yellow is desert, brown are mountains, white is high mountains and polar.

Used a generator that SHOULD have been in the OP for this thread, but wasn't for some reason. Seemed to take weather and climate into consideration, so I've left it as is for now. Anyone wanna weigh in on this though?

>>53141456
Well, keep this >>53109799 in mind and take it for what little it's worth, but the terrain does not seem to make sense. It looks odd from a geographical sense (continents are very thin, the island chains seem completely out of proportion (waaaay too many too big islands), the mountains look as a chains of blobs rather than actual mountain ridges, and the biomes are all out of whack.
That said, this only matters if you actually care about real-world rules like geography and climatology.

File: IMG_0318.jpg (329KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 1280x853px

reposting from a dead thread about factions in my setting because I want to talk about it

Well there's goatfuckers, trading caravans, and the shattered remnants of a notGreek colony vs manticores, notSythia, and a Buddhist death cult. Druggie witches and more than a couple flavors of necromancers probably won't leave you alone either. There's a bunch of assholes hiding behind walls and they all think their asshole tastes the best. Some might say the notDjinn/Ifrits and their acolytes are the worst, but the goatfuckers will tell you it's the manticores you really have to watch out for all along. Then again what do they know, they fuck goats.

>>53142286
That sounds really cool and resembles some ideas I've been coming up with. Care to go into more detail?

>>53143182
Sure, theres a lot going on is there anything in particular you're interested in? I'll write up something a little more comprehensive in a bit regardless.

>>53106739
Hey, I need a name for a sanctioned assassin's guild, think Morag Tong in a massive vertical city with airships.

>>53143389
I was thinking something totally innocuous, like the third ward men's pool league, but I missed the
>sanctioned
Do they hang out in an airship? What kind of body governs them? Who gave them authority?

>>53143270
>The witches
What sort of drugs do they take? Are these drugs common? If not, how do they acquire them?

One of my factions is a very small notSlavic kingdom which has diviners who use drugs. Since they can't put up a fight against the bigger neighbouring kingdoms, I was thinking something along the lines that they'd export a drug to destabilise the lands of their rivals

>Death cult
Any sort of description. I was planning on doing something similar with a notDravidian group

>The wall and what's behind it
I'm largely using the Kara-tur setting from 2e, which has a wall. I haven't put much thought into what horrors lurk on the other side and looking for some inspiration

>>53143434
They are part of a council of 13 houses that control the city. They issue their assassins a writ of execution which permits them to kill the target and only the target. Their assassins are also compelled to come forward after the deed is committed. The only catch is that the council (minus the assassin's guild themselves) sets the base contract price to balance honor killings in the city.

>>53143389
What race are most of the assassins? Are they thugs who just kill whoever or do they only kill high-class government officials and other powers that be for the benefit of their own government? Are they generally good-aligned, killing dictators and so fourth, or is coin their only moral compass? Are they deliberately evil, assassinating good kings and sending other kingdoms into turmoil? Who specifically controls them?

So much goes into a name, you cant have your ruffian half orc assassins called 'the highgarden club'

>>53142286
sounds like The Dying Earth

>>53143507
They are almost entirely human, with maybe a few half-giants or hawk-men for more exotic jobs. They are permitted to kill anybody (or at least try) for the right price. They have no allignment. They are a public utility that serves as both a tool for the people to exercise justice (so the council doesnt have to) as well as a means to put down rebellions and the like. They are secret police, assassins, and spies all for hire. That said, they only operate with impunity within their own city, they take contracts elsewhere but the price is double. They are led by the their administrative head who sits on the council. His technical title is Councilman but he is referred to more often as the Deathfather.

>>53143737
Maybe something like the highgarden club then, something clean and official.
Hand of the Council?
Maybe something really inside like 'The Children' since their leader has the word father in his colloquial title, that would even bring rumors that the council was using kids as their killers, if you wanted to paint the council in a bad or seedy light.

File: simanor-eitan-almond-tree-on-small-plot-of-land-near-mount-hebron-israel-middle-east.jpg (84KB, 473x355px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 473x355px

>>53143466
>the witches
scopalamine, ergot, amantia, DMT, opiates, a few uppers, straight up neurotoxins, but mostly disassociatives and hallucinogens. All ingame analogues of course. They put themselves into deep trances that sort of give them insight and power over the world around them, but mostly makes them totally fucking nuts. This is a low(ish) magic setting, so witches are basically late game herbalists who went off the deep end. They'll poison you and drug you up with a bunch of scoplamine and make you into their thrall, sort of like the haitian voodoo zombies.
The drugs themselves aren't too uncommon, but definitely dangerous if used incorrectly and require a good deal of skill to get to a useable state.
>Death Cult
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_von_Ungern-Sternberg
esoteric buddhism is nuts
there's less on this page than I remember. I'm still working on this part I haven't studied buddhism in a while, but the flavor is all there. Self-mummifying monks, throat singing.
You ever read siddhartha? Take all that self actualization, transcendent humility crap and apply it to shiva instead. I really like where this bit is headed, but I'll lose focus on everything else if I think about it too much.
>the wall
Sorry, it's walls. Should have been more clear. I'm just talking about fortified trading posts and walled cities. Very central asian, they aren't city states because they don't rule anything outside the gates, but they aren't ruled by anybody else either. They might make tribute to some warlord but they are very insular and they are assholes. Landed bandits with delusions of grandeur.

>>53143811
Its a shame that colors other than red, white, and black have no real cultural connotations in english. Id love for it to be a more sinister form of "white glove society" but black gloves has its own connotations, and red gloves just sounds dumb.

What about the Satarlan (the name of the city, or rather the adjective form) Epistolary Society. It could have started as a package delivery guild that became an assassin's guild by virtue of knowing the ins and outs of the city and its people moreso than any other group.

>>53143466
>I was thinking something along the lines that they'd export a drug to destabilise the lands of their rivals
I meant to add something about this, this is happening IRL right now. Basically al Qaeda or whatever is flooding russia, particularly siberian russia with cheap cheap heroin to do exactly that. I'm sure you're aware of the Opium wars where exactly that happened as well, but are you aware of our current conflict? China is now flooding our markets with fentanyl and carfentanyl, which is legal there, causing obscene amounts of overdoses. I don't know how it is where you are, but in the Northeast USA our already massive opiate epidemic is going critical.

guys I got an idea
In my world there's like lava unicorns that fart out gold, giant marijuana trees, and a cult that worships JFK as a god and uses tantric buttfucking as a means of praise.
what do you think, any feedback?

>>53143955
love it

>>53143955
Amazing

>>53143955

You just want (you)s

>>53144235
Everyone wants (you)s

>>53144262

The real übermensch needs no (you)s

>>53143868
>black gloves has its own connotations

In your setting or in real life?

if its in real life you don't have to give a shit about the connotations.

I like your name though, but I don't know if its only because it taught me a new word or not.

>>53143913
Killing off a bunch of heroin addicts doesn't sound like an entirely bad thing. Not that they should all just be rounded up and shot, but you know, if a higher number of them start dropping like flies, that's just less of a burden on the state/country.

Unless the net taxpayer money spent on the kids they might end up leaving behind is higher, but I'm sure most of the kids would just end up living with grandma or whatever.

Now if china was mixing fentanyl into febreeze or some shit, that'd be ridiculous.

>>53140835
Right, then how many spheres do you think makes sense to start off with?

>>53143852
He is one of the most interesting guys in modern history, in my opinion. You've got good taste. I'm going for a low magic setting as well. Thanks for the further explanations; I've got a couple new ideas now.

>>53143913
Sothern Ontario. We share the same problem.

>>53144299
No one needs (you)s.

They still want (you)s.

>>53145253
You know usually I'd be right there with you, and I've had to cut off my fair share of dope heads, but recently it's been ridiculous. I've never seen it this bad. They found it in cocaine not too long ago. It affects everyone now.
>>53145865
Thanks dude, good looks.

File: StartingRegionMap.png (40KB, 1468x918px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 1468x918px

Medieval world that focuses on the Europe analog but with less feudalism and more SE Asian Mandala system. Also the Dwarves of not!Europe speak not!Tatar and the Elves speak not!Basque.

Map Key
Big red dots: Cities with over 20,000 people
Smaller purple dots: Cities between 5,000 and 20,000
Broken lines: Centralised or Feudal states
Normal lines: Mandalas/Hegemonies/Spheres of Influence

>>53146698
>the Elves speak not!Basque.

You're my nigger

>>53146663
hopefully it doesn't end up in weed any time soon

>>53146698
Nice. Would play

>>53146698
>Medieval world that focuses on the Europe analog but with less feudalism and more SE Asian Mandala
That is a really weird description that I'm having problem to wrap my head around. But the map is fairly nice, as far as I can be a judge. Not sure about the void spaces between the political bodies. Usually, even in old history - if the land between two countries was at least a little habbitable, the borders would always be right next to each other, and states would rarely be these islands in a middle of no-man's land. Though I might be just misreading the map too.

Don't these threads ever get boring for you autists? The same shit over and over again with nothing being created or explored. The endless self-wank with barely any help from others. Doesn't that ever get tire-some?

File: IMG_0257.jpg (56KB, 399x299px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 399x299px

>>53148225
what are you suggesting

>>53148333
these threads delete themselves

>>53148225
are u fat lol

>>53148225
While I have some major issues with these threads (and I stopped posting my own work over a year ago because I figured out it's pointless), they still have their benefits. People can straighten up their own ideas just by having to formulate them in a manner comprehensive to others alone. Every now and then you even do get some useful feedback, especially on things that can be more objectively judged (map geographies and topographies, historical sources of inspiration etc...). Reading other peoples ideas can be inspiring too sometimes.

The discussion does not work nearly as well as I'd hope it would, but there is still some benefit to be found here: if absolutely nothing else, it's fun to write about your world, and that alone can be enough.

Better question is what makes you so god damn bitter about these threads. It clearly isn't a pragmatically motivated issue you are having here: you are actually mad at people still holding these threads. So what is up with that? Some trauma? Did not get feedback on your own work and now you are bitter? Or does the fact that people do this somehow intimidate you so that you need to lash out against it?

What is your story here?

>>53148484
i think he might be someone who posted a donutsteel idea and because we do the 'same shit over and over again' we didnt pay attention to it

File: 1403737792724.png (187KB, 467x360px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 467x360px

>>53148484
>>53148521
>it's not these threads that are wrong, its you!

>>53148556
are you fat tho? i used to be really fat and judgmental about other people who didnt affect me*, but then i started going to gym. it's really nice to read this thread between sets (a lot of fatties do really short rests so they couldn't do this, but i rest 2-3 min when i'm doing a heavy set) and it's fun to work on my projects with inspiration during shorter rests

*you are affecting me right now by saying one of the few generals i read regularly is shit

>>53148521
I'd assume that too, but we all know what assumptions are good for. I'd rather hear him and his side. It's not just for mocking purposes, I almost share his sentiment, except I kinda realized that getting mad like this really just reflects poorly on me. I mean: I think there is a lot of space for improvement here, though I'm not sure how to go around with it, but even imperfect thing is better than nothing.

>>53148556
Yeah, that is very much what we are saying, good that you undestood that. The problem is in you, very clearly and quite undeniably.
Still curious about what is your issue here.

>>53148593
thanks /fit/izen (upboated) but I go to the gym as well.
>>53148597
It's fucking moronic to think there might be nothing wrong with these threads. Have some self-reflection for once you autist.

>>53148642
>thanks /fit/izen (upboated) but I go to the gym as well.
yea but are u fat lol? just cuz u hop on the horizontal leg press and do sets of 50 at 35 pounds doesnt make u the elite_lifter you might think you are

>>53148642
>you autist.
what threads do u read on 4chan lol

/r9k/? or did u 'graduate' to the 'exit board' and become a 'almost chad'

>>53148642
>It's fucking moronic to think there might be nothing wrong with these threads.
Please read this sentence again:
>While I have some major issues with these threads (and I stopped posting my own work over a year ago because I figured out it's pointless), they still have their benefits
Then re-think your answer once again. Because what you provided right now is actually a literal non-sequitur.

>>53148663
I never said I was an "elite_lifter" I go to the gym and have very little body fat. you can stop showing off and being a little retard now.

>>53148710
>I never said I was an "elite_lifter" I go to the gym and have very little body fat. you can stop showing off and being a little retard now.

why is scrawnytwinkboi69 shitting on one of the only generals i like?

File: 1451974782215.png (374KB, 870x720px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 870x720px

>>53148730
>/wbg/ is one of the only generals he likes
Holy shit you really are mentally deficient

>>53148752
link me a better general

pls no >>/hm/

File: IMG_0303.jpg (41KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 600x450px

>>53148642
hey babe of course there's shit wrong with these threads and the dumbfucks who post here but let me ask you this: has anything ever been good on this god forsaken corner of the internet ?

No, no, never. If you have a suggestion for improvement I'm all ears but don't expect anything to change.
I come here to bounce ideas off nerds and it doesn't really do the trick, but it's the best I've got and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

>>53143955
Over The Edge?

>>53147836
The Mandala system found in South East Asia runs contrary to the system of states that westerners understand. Under the Mandala system you won't find any clear idea of a border, rather it a set of non-exclusive and non-invasive relationships between rulers. A large city may have a smaller tributary city, but this relationship is clearly not statehood. Politically the larger city would control the people of that city and the surounding countryside. The ruler of that city will have tributary rulers, meaning they would exchange goods and have other symbolic roles. These tributaries were clearly autonomous in nearly every way. Essentially the tributary would provide manpower and other similar things in exchange for the larger cities protection. As I said earlier these relationships were not exclusive. A smaller city could be a tributary of multiple cities, and could have its own tributary cities that had no relation to the cities its overlord was a tributary to. It is a really hard concept to wrap your head around nowadays.

How big should a D&D world be to have a satisfying exploration feel?

>>53150149
I've found that no matter how big it is technically (land size), it won't feel big unless it's detailed. You could have a hundred background kingdoms that are just names and they won't really make the world feel big unless their existence has some impact or intrigue. Even giving unused locations tiny facts like "this island has little resources and pirates have picked the coastal villages clean" can make a huge difference.

>>53149891
>The Mandala system found in South East Asia runs contrary to the system of states that westerners understand.
OK, that is actually interesting and something I had no idea about, and I'm looking into this as I write this, thanks. And it kinda explains solves the issue I took with the borders.
But my issue with description of the system was more with the line "Europe Analogue except (something structurally, culturally and politically very different)." Because it's the contradiction: if it adheres to cultural and political tradition drastically different from European one, how is it European analogue? Feudalism and it's socio-political implications are pretty fundamental cornerstone of European cultures and removing those makes me feel like the analogy with Europe is just not possible anymore.

Maybe I'm just missing a clarification of what exactly is there analogical to Europe. Is it the geography? Aesthetics (clothes, architecture etc...)? It can hardly be social structure, since that seems to be already diverging with the introduction of essentially city-state like bodies with tributaries instead of strict feudal cast system...

File: bottie on the job.jpg (57KB, 564x719px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 564x719px

How does this sound for a sci-fi equivalent to mages?

>Holomancers
>utilizing a complex and sensitive mix of g-mods and cybernetics some people are able to successfully sync their nervous systems with hard-light generators, allowing them to form weapons,shapes and shields from light itself.

But what would the disadvantage to this be? im thinking only a few people actually survive the process, but maybe heat is an issue?

>>53150444
It's a whole load of obvious technobable that makes me wonder why you don't just say "it's magic" instead and try to dress it up as science fiction. Might be fitting for a completely zany "we don't give a fuck if it makes sense" style of setting though.

>>53150402
Feudalism has always been greatly overstated in European history. Large chunks of the continent were for a large part of the middle ages not feudal, many parts were never feudal. Political systems are also only one part of culture, and often not usually unique, Feudal Japan was clearly not Feudal Britain. The way family is structured, religion is treated, ethics, customs, how daily peasant life is, etc resemble Europe. There were multiple city-states that at least very vaguely resembled mandalas in Italy throughout the middle ages.

>>53141943
What's a better way to draw mountains in this style?

>>53150618
>Feudalism has always been greatly overstated in European history.
Well that is some bullshit that needs to go up there with "potatoes weren't important in the industrial revolution" and "swords were not really used in medieval warfare" on the list of not-even-half-truisms that people state mostly for the contrarianism itself usually in blind faith that people will mistake the contrarianism with erudition.
No, vast majority of Europe was feudal over the course of middle ages (especially if we talk high middle ages, that is 13th to 15th century), and the feudal structure formed the culture in absolutely critical way. It was the single most fundamental element of dominance hierarchy and economical distribution out there.
The only thing you are somewhat right about is that feudal structures may differ quite a lot between societies and that Japanese liege system different from European one. But honestly, that is just a terminological play: we use the same word, but we do speak about different things.

None of this answers my actual concern, and that is how the society is analogical to Europe, if it's not in what was one of THE most formative social structures of it's history.

>>53150850
not him but uh, what about like, white people? and stuff

>>53150850
Germany and the low countries, France, Portugal, England and Lowland Scotland were feudal. Italy was city-states, Ireland outside of English control was its own pre-feudal system with the Scottish Highlands being similar, Scandinavia was not feudal, Spain was protofeudal, Eastern Europe went from tribal to semi-feudal or in the case of the Eastern Roman Empire from imperial to semi-feudal, it never quite resembled the west. Feudalism, while a really vague concept to begin with, still by even broad definitions was not found in many regions of the continent. There is more to feudalism than there being a liege and vassal, or else nearly any system before the modern nation-state was feudal.

>>53151373
Actually, you are only partially right about Italy, and arguably about Ireland, Scotland and Ireland up till fourteenth century, when they were like the rest of Europe subjected to the same formal model, and even then the concept of "proto-feudalism" essentially means decentralized but still feudally structured society.
And even Italy was divided across traditional feudal regions and semi-independent city-states, many of which were offically part of the feudal hierarchy (not to mention mirrored the social structure of it, just on smaller scale), and merely given special priviledges.
Spain was Islamic (and feudal, because Arabian cultures adhered to a feudal model as well), after the Reconquista it quickly shifted to the exact same model as the rest of Europe sans some regions of Italy.
As for East Europe: Bohemia, Moravia and Poland were feudal (strictly, unless by middle ages you mean pre-christianic eras) as well. Even Latvia was, long, long before it was Christianized.

>still by even broad definitions was not found in many regions of the continent
With the exception of some regions of Italy that were given special priviledges, by 13th century the entire Christianized Europe was feudal to a point where refusal to adhere to papal feudal model was a ground for Crusade you idiot. What the fuck is wrong with you? Even Orthodoxy-controled regions adhered to basically the same system of cast differenciation, blood-tied lieges and claims, the main difference there was just the role of religious leader.

So no. Non-Feudal regions were basically non-existent. Only regions that were given special rights above tradiational feudal model, and regions that were so god damn backwards and non-important that the world just ignored them.

>There is more to feudalism than there being a liege and vassal,
No. That is actually all that the word means. And you are full of some really, really stupid shit.

>>53151901
>you idiot. What the fuck is wrong with you?
hey man, can't you be nicer? i don't think a discussion about feudalism is that serious pham.

How do you like your science fantasy, /wbg/?

>>53155156
Scientifically fantastic

>>53155156
Fantastically Scientific

File: 1484082480383.jpg (818KB, 1500x1002px) Image search: [Google]

818KB, 1500x1002px

>>53155156
Moebius-style.

>>53143955
lol I could see the shitstorm from a mile away when this bitter faggot posted this passive-aggressive rant.

File: Nicolas-Poussin-winter-the-flood-1664-1.jpg (2MB, 1700x1243px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1700x1243px

>>53155156
Post-apocalyptic

Is a historical character who plays a role which is a mix of Otto Von Bismark and Jesus too overpowered or mary sueish?

>>53157648
If a character is basically the main guy of the setting it's okay for him to be a bit of a mary sue as long as you don't go all in and try to make him the rightest but instead are still able to disagree with some of his choices and principles.
In other words, don't self-insert and value different perspectives.

>>53106739
Anyone have any ideas regarding a fantasy setting that's sort of like Full Metal Alchemist or "WW1 with Wizards"?

Why is magic almost always treated like it's supernatural, even in settings where it's clearly just part of the natural world?

And why do people have this weird urge to make an explicit distinction between divine 'miracle' magic and arcane 'book-smarts' magic?

>>53117392
Other anon here, I split my campaign map based on geography / culture similarities. The two go somewhat in hand. For example, I have a not France, next to the not hre. The not hre I don't do specific kingdoms unless the pcs go there. It allows you to be flexible. So you can split your map up saying 'not Muslim's here' and 'not Aztecs here' rather than listing countries which might change due to war anyway.

>>53159277
>Why is magic almost always treated like it's supernatural
That is a weird question. Magic IS supernatural. That is very much how it is defined, across both fiction and real world cultures. You can't have non-supernatural magic, if you remove the supernaturality of it, it's no longer magic, it's just weird science and weird physics. Which plenty of fiction does too... Magic is almost universally defined and understood as a way to transcend or over-reach the natural, physical order of world.
It's like asking for metaphysics that aren't metaphysical.

As for the second question, that one is more interesting. I think it mostly boils down to reflecting the two most major experiences/sources of magical thinking in real world history: folk/ritual/religious magic (which includes shit like transformation in christianity) and the "Aristotelian" and later Hermeneutic tradition which includes ideas such as alchemy astronomy, both of which coexisted in European history simultaneously.

I just think most writers can't resist the urge to just include both traditions (so that there is a large and varied enough pool of inspiration) but the two approaches have difficulty being united. So the line emerges naturally. It's also more of a throw-back or an attempt to accommodate modern, secular-thinking people into playing magical characters, I guess.

>>53159277
> And why do people have this weird urge to make an explicit distinction between divine 'miracle' magic and arcane 'book-smarts' magic?

Personally, I like magic divided based on power source, each with its tradeoffs.

"Divine" magic is magic that you get from a god. It's a solid, consistent source of magical power with few surprises and practically no risk. All that reliability and safety has a price, of course, namely the fact that your power is entirely reliant on following the rules set out by the god that is empowering you. Now, all those rules are set out way ahead of time and you know all of them going in, so again there are no surprises, but it's still somewhat restrictive, and there are a limited number of gods to pick from so it's somewhat lacking in choice.

"Demonic" magic is the reverse. Everything is negotiated, nothing is "standard," you can draw power from numerous deals made with potentially a large number of different demons, the rules can be bent and frequently are, and there is neither consistency nor safety in anything. The advantage, however, is that basically anyone can do it and there are an endless array of demons, at least of few of whom will probably offer you a good deal. Maybe. For a while, at least.

"Arcane" magic cuts out the middleman and just goes straight to amassing magical power yourself with no one to regulate the flow. This is difficult and dangerous, but you're the one in control.

>>53159277
>even in settings where it's clearly just part of the natural world?
I just tend to avoid the word "magic".

>>53159277
Because there's the daily world, and the actual world.

You don't see anyone doing their daily business, thinking about dark energy, high energy quasars, singularities and fucking neutron stars, do you? Yet, that shit is like 99,999999999% of the motherfucking universe - and all we care about is that 0,0000000000001% of making money, watching TV, playing videogames, living life, getting a girlfriend, setting up a D&D game, etc. You get the idea.

>>53159344
Magic is supernatural in our world because it doesn't exist. It doesn't fit the laws of nature as we understand them.

If ritual behaviour can reliably and predictably cause real, physical effects in your game world, then why don't you just consider it a part of nature?

>>53159344
Metaphysics still examines the nature of reality. The prefix 'meta-' doesn't automatically make it about some sort of other, super-reality.

>>53160089

You don't know how many times I had to explain this point to other people

>>53160003
>Magic is supernatural in our world because it doesn't exist. It doesn't fit the laws of nature as we understand them.
No. Magic does "exist". It is a way to understand the world (or to describe it) in symbolic and analogical rather than causal and scientific manner. It's a type of perception or symbolic language. Now, fantasy fiction takes that (for us) strange way of looking at things and incorporates it into it's own symbolic language, which may seem kinda odd, but it's more or less how most human fiction works already.
But if you remove the aspect of magic that is quite literally "understanding and percieving the world in systems that go beyond physical realm and causality" (which is just a more convoluted way of saying "supernatural"), you literally remove the only aspect that gives magic any functional meaning.

>If ritual behaviour can reliably and predictably cause real,
So first of all, you think societies practicing magical rituals did not thing that is precisely what is going to happen when they practiced those? And it did work quite reliably too for them, by the way.
Second of all: if it causes real, physical effects across the entire causal structure, then again: IT'S NOT MAGIC ANYMORE. It's the bypassing of the part of causal chain through magical or symbolic connections that defines magic.

>>53160089
Actually, that is precisely what it means. Reality is what we can examine through essentially physical means. Metaphysics describe things that are outside and above the realm of what can be examined through physical means. That is a "super" (more precisely meta-)reality.

>>53160135
You probably are struggling getting people to understand you because you are wrong, and they probably can tell.

>>53160142
Now I'm not involved in this conversation but you're retarded and here's why:
Physics is something describes a worldsystem. We use physics to refer to a generic set of laws that can describe the entirety of the world we live in. Metaphysics is something used to describe something outside of the world we live in, which also includes the structure and nature of reality as well as those things that are not real but percieved to have a tie to the actual and the real.
In a world where magic exists - get this - magic exists. Therefore magic is no longer supernatural because it is part of the natural world, because magic exists and I can actually cast Prestidigitation instead of ending up looking like a retard. In this sense it isn't supernatural because it is part of the natural world in question, otherwise it wouldn't exist in that natural world.

>>53160142
>symbolic language
What the fuck do you think mathematics and physics is?

>>53160170
>What the fuck do you think mathematics and physics is?
OK, poor wording on my side, I should have said "sybolic relationships" rather than just symbolic "language". Though language is in itself a system of relationships, you kinda got me here, that shit was not clear on my side. So let me clarify:
Math and physics are causal systems. They don't describe symbolic relationships (though we obviously use symbols to formulate those causal relationships, because every descriptive system is inherently based on symbols), they describe causal relationships that are as far as we can tell, empirically near-undeniable, and have been obtained by consistent process of verification.
Magic, on other hand, is obtained by replacing the verification process that gives us faith in the causal connection between the two by symbolic or allegorical connection. Elements of magical thinking are not based in empirical connections, but by finding allegories upon abstractions.

>>53160170
Physics is a method of understanding how reality is how it is.

Math is a bunch of amphetamine addicts getting really fucking high and not sleeping for three days straight talking about how much numbers there would be in an infinite stack of symbols.

>>53160142
>You probably are struggling getting people to understand you because you are wrong, and they probably can tell.

You hurt my feelings desu

>>53160248
Mathematics are the tools physicists use to move past 'rock falls' so give it some respect bitch
t. physicist

>>53160229
That's your version of magic, and either way generally speaking if you're invoking idol theory to use magic you still need to do specific shit to invoke that magic. In other words cause -> effect, and therefore it has to be part of the natural world because otherwise it wouldn't have had an effect. If it's part of the natural world then it isn't fucking supernatural. If I cast fireball right fucking now, then it wouldn't be supernatural - why? Becaue it happened within the natural world and is therefore part of our worldsystem, even if we don't understand it.

>>53160168
I love how someone who clearly has virtually no education in neither physics, nor philsophy, nor anthropology and cognitive psychology is totally certain that people who talk about those subjects are all wrong, despite having actual education on them.

So for starters: no, physics don't describe a world-system. In fact, in academic terminology, "world-system" means something ENTIRELY different, a largely socio-economical problem.
Physics describe our assumption about causality inherent to the world we live in, where causality is defined empirically proven connections, or at least mathematical models that seem to have a good fit to empirical observations in the past.

Metaphysics is used to described assumed structure of a world that goes beyond physical and empirically observable phenomena. That is probably what you are trying to say too, which makes me wonder why are you even taking issue with what I am saying, and I fail to see how this is fucking relevant to anything.

That said:
>In a world where magic exists - get this - magic exists.
Once again my retarded friend, as magic is a way to understand the world, and that way is very prevailent in our world, "magic exists" in OUR WORLD as well. It just means something else than you think it means. You are a moron, never even bothered to look into the problem of magic form an academic standpoint, your only understanding of it is from cheap fantasy fiction, and as a result, you are using the word wrong.
If magic manifests itself in other way that how it's defined in our world, then it's no longer magic. The definition of that word comes derived from our experience in real world: every fictional universe, no matter how far-fetched it gets, is in a way just a symbolic representation of the only world we actually inhabit.
If you are ignoring the use of the word from real world in your fiction, you are just using the term wrong. End of discussion.

>>53160268
>That's your version of magic,
There is no "my version of magic". That is the reality of magic. As observed, documented, peer-reviewed and otherwise established by thousands of scientists and scholars from fields ranging from classical social anthropology to neurocognitive sciences.

>>53160268
>If I cast fireball right fucking now, then it wouldn't be supernatural - why?
If you can do that, and the physical causal properties of your world allow that to happen as part of a natural physical causal chain, it's not MAGIC anymore. It's no more magic than firing a fucking gun. It's just a simple physical process.

If however, the act itself still contradicts the physical causal chains of your world, then it is magic - but it is also a trangression against the physical order of your world: SUPERNATURAL ACT.

How hard is this to fucking comprehend? Either you are doing something which is part of the normal, physical natural chain of causality, in that case NOT MAGIC, or you are doing something that actually deviates and transgresses the natural physical causal chain, in which case it is MAGIC AND SUPERNATURAL.
The two can't be fucking separated.

>>53160268
That's actually a joke I ripped from a little speech by some astrophysicist.

>>53160286
And academic terminology generally doesn't deal with magic.

>Physics describe our assumption about causality inherent to the world we live in, where causality is defined empirically proven connections, or at least mathematical models that seem to have a good fit to empirical observations in the past.
But I'm a physicist. Physics as a subject is the study of the physical, as opposed to mental or spiritual world. It has nothing to do with empiricism or mathematical models, those are the tools we use too create our description.

>Metaphysics is used to described assumed structure of a world that goes beyond physical and empirically observable phenomena. That is probably what you are trying to say too, which makes me wonder why are you even taking issue with what I am saying, and I fail to see how this is fucking relevant to anything.
It is actually used to describe a world beyond the world itself, as in, the structure of reality, as opposed to reality. It's like describing a car's functioning as opposed to how a car is built and the road upon which is drives.

>magic is a way to understand the world
But this isn't true in worlds where magic is something else. When people say "magic exists", they mean that "things in violation of physics as we know it" exist, whether they use symbolic magic or some other form of it.

>>53160325
It cannot fucking contradict the casual chains of a world in which it occurs when invoked by an entity within that world, you're trying to sound too deep and confusing yourself. Can a computer program use more resources than it has access to? No. Someone from within a world invoking ANYTHING necessarily means a world supports that something. If an OUTSIDE entity, such as a programmer adding more hardware resources, changes the world, that may be 'magical' - but something within a world can never violate a world, because it is itself part of the world. How is this hard to fucking understand? What people term "magic" is a set of effects that seem to violate our physical laws. They, however, do not violate the physical laws of a world in which they occur, because, well, they fucking happened. Even though this makes it not supernatural though, DOESN'T STOP PEOPLE FROM CALLING IT MAGIC because it still remains inexplicable with [global] physical laws - in most cases, magic is acts as an entirely seperate set of laws with completely fucked interaction with normal physical laws.

>>53160341
He probably failed set theory.

>>53160364
I don't think so. I think he was having a little giggle at the expense of mathematicians since mathematicians tend to hold some pretty insane ideas on the nature of reality.

Since it was a talk at a skeptics convention and all.

>>53160412
Honestly not much weirder than anyone else's, except for the really high level mathematicians who legitimately end up in asylums. Mathematics and Philosophy are legit Things Man Was Not Meant To Know and Subjects That Should Not Be. Have you ever counted how many mathematicians and philosophers end up insane?

>>53160356
>And academic terminology generally doesn't deal with magic.
That is so hilariously wrong I don't know even where to start. The fuck man, are you not aware that magic is a historical and anthropological and psychological phenomenon that has been and still is intensely studied? The fuck? It's an incredibly important part of our history, deeply intervined with the very concept of religion and mythological mindset. Of course it's fucking being dealt with on multiple levels.

>But I'm a physicist.
Then you are a FUCKING AWFUL one if you describe physics as a "world-system".

>It has nothing to do with empiricism or mathematical models
WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK?! You claim to be a physicist? And you don't know that study of physical is entirely, purely and exclusively done through empirical or math-based-modeling methods? That the fact that we use empirical data and mathematical models is what defines the fucking field? JESUS.

It's the empirical and mathematical justification that defines WHAT IS PHYSICAL. LITERALLY, PHYSICAL MEANS "CAN BE STUDIED THROUGH EMPIRICAL AND MATHEMATICAL MEANS".

Why the fuck are you even lying about being a physicists. You might just entered college and did not pay much attention to basic introduction fields at best. That does not make you a physicist, that makes you a very clueless and lazy student.

>It is actually used to describe a world beyond the world itself,
No, it's used to describe aspects of the world that are assumed to be undeniably true even if they can't be studied and verified through empirical or mathematical methods.
>It's like describing a car's functioning as opposed to how a car is built and the road upon which is drives.
Now you are mistaking teleology with metaphysics. There are non-teleological metaphysical theory out there, you know. Jesus.

>>53160430
Mathematicians have an much larger percentage of creationists, intelligent design believers and weirder /x/ shit than any other academic field - I think even theology is less crazy than maths.

>>53160430

I'm a philosophy major and this is totally true

>>53160356
>But this isn't true in worlds where magic is something else.
Ok. Let's define weapon as "something you use to write letters with.
In a world where it's true that weapons are defined as tools used to write letters with", of course, weapons are not something used to harm others.
This is retarded. You are stripping the world of it's meaning and using it in a completely different one for absolutely no fucking reason. Yes, you can do that. It's stupid, meaningless, and it shows you have no respect of the actual concept itself. It's literally just using the same sound to describe something completely different than actual humans in real world use it for.

>When people say "magic exists", they mean that "things in violation of physics as we know it" exist,
OK, so the act DOES violate the physics. OK, but that also makes it supernatural. What the fuck are we even arguing about again?

>>53160364
>Can a computer program use more resources than it has access to? No. Someone from within a world invoking ANYTHING necessarily means a world supports that something. If an OUTSIDE entity, such as a programmer adding more hardware resources, changes the world, that may be 'magical'
Jesus, and you just said I'm the one trying to sound too deep and confusing myself.
Nah, I'm not saying anything particularly deep: just academic shit, and I'm not confusing myself, I'm confusing you. Although considering the above sentence, I think I don't need to do that, you are entirely capable of losing yourself without my help.

>>53160364
>but something within a world can never violate a world,
Explain all existing real world magical beliefs then? The fuck? Also, the very existence of the IDEA OF MAGIC assumes that our world (more precisely, reality, as the physical space we inhabit and empirically experience) is not the entirety there is to the whole story. Of course. The existence of magic, the IDEA OF MAGIC as opposed to the idea of science, assumes there are deeper levels of reality at play above the actual one we can percieve.

Again, if you don't think in this "mutilayered way", then you are not practicing magic. The "existence of a programmer" as you used in your bizarre analogy" is a condition of magic existing. Without an assumption that the world is not entirely self contained, magic could never exist: only physics.

In reality, the one thing you are completely missing here is that is all about our perception and our (highly limited and imperfect) understanding of the world. Magic really comes from the fact that we THINK we roughly know how the physical world works, but we don't. So we assume presence of other "levels" of reality to fill in the gaps and not feel so lost and scared, or to explain and validate existing theories.

But again and again and again: MAGIC IS AN ASSUMPTION OF THINGS GOING BEYOND NATURAL ORDER. TO SAY: THERE ARE THINGS SUPER-NATURAL.

>>53160325
>If you can do that, and the physical causal properties of your world allow that to happen as part of a natural physical causal chain, it's not MAGIC anymore. It's no more magic than firing a fucking gun. It's just a simple physical process.
This is the original point.

Calling things like Fireball, Prestidigitation and Power Word: Kill 'magic' and 'spells' in the context of the game is all well and good, but they obviously don't match up with any real-world interpretation of magic.

Nor are they supernatural. They're predictable and reproducible effects that are completely within the game world's natural laws.

Encyclopedia Brittanica describes magic as
>a concept used to describe a mode of rationality or way of thinking that looks to invisible forces to influence events, effect change in material conditions, or present the illusion of change. Within the Western tradition, this way of thinking is distinct from religious or scientific modes; however, such distinctions and even the definition of magic are subject to wide debate.

Do we call the spells in our game 'magic' because they work through invisible forces? Is that all that's required for something to qualify as magic in most games?

>>53161192
>This is the original point.
The original point was that in a world where magic is real, it would no longer be supernatural.
My argument is that in a world where phenomena like casting fireballs is a part of natural physical order, it would not be MAGIC.
Because MAGIC is ALWAYS SUPERNATURAL. It's quite literally part of it's definition.

You can have a world where things that would only be viewed as magic in our reality (like summoning a flaming ball out of nowhere and hurling it at your enemies), could be viewed as mundane and normal, basic physics, no more magical than pulling a trigger on a gun.

But in that world, casting fireball would no longer be magic to those people, because it would cease to be supernatural to them: and that would stop it being MAGIC.
When we discovered gunpoweder, the idea of summing explosions and fire out of seeming thin air stopped being magic too as soon as we discovered it's just physics and chemistry at work: mundane, reliable, empirical stuff. NOT. FUCKING. MAGIC.

But if the setting still contains the concept of MAGIC, it means that there are supernatural elements at play. Again: literal meaning of the word.

The whole problem here comes from the fact that you people are morons, and literally cannot get past the idea that magic is a shallow cheap fantasy aesthetic trope. It's not. Magic is not "fireball" and particle effects. And you literally cannot for a second disconnect yourself from that cheap, vague, meaningless sentiment of magic as defined by bad fucking fiction.

Magic is stuff that reaches beyond normal order into the supernatural order. That is what the word means. Not fucking fireball you idiots.

>>53161259
These definitions are always useless. Just don't ever rely on a public general dictionary definitions as an argument.

>>53161279
>subject to wide debate
sounds like they hit the nail on the head friendo

>>53161315
>sounds like they hit the nail on the head friendo
Actually, admitting that their definition is not reliable is the only part of that definition that isn't flat out useless. "invisible forces"? So now magnetism is magic? Sound?

This is not a good definition. Now, that isn't Brittanica's fault, all of these dictionaries are weak by design, as their purpose was never to serve as any form of authority, merely as purely orientational guide. The only people at fault here are people who use these dictionaries wrong: that is treat them as authorities and use them as arguments in any discussions.

File: magnets.jpg (25KB, 640x359px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 640x359px

>>53161348
>So now magnetism is magic?
Yes, it is.

>>53161348
>The only people at fault here are people who use these dictionaries wrong: that is treat them as authorities and use them as arguments in any discussions.
Which isn't how it was used in this thread.

But I know comprehensive reading can be difficult, especially if your head is so far up your own ass you can see the back of your teeth.

>>53161387
>But I know comprehensive reading can be difficult, especially if your head is so far up your own ass you can see the back of your teeth.
I love how you are really angry because you really can't put together an argument against what I stated previously, but seriously?
Did you skip this sentence?
>Just don't ever rely on a public general dictionary definitions as an argument.
Or did you read it, just not understand it?

Come on. I know losing hurts, but you could do it with a little bit more dignity. Maybe realize that continuing to attack people just because their opinions made you mad yet you could not argue against them is just incredibly immature and gives off how personal and irrational you are about the whole thing?

>>53161279
>But in that world, casting fireball would no longer be magic to those people, because it would cease to be supernatural to them
Something that can be reliably reproduced may still be based on forces that have nothing to do with the natural world.

The ability to instantly cure any disease by channeling the spiritual power of Zibzab, deity of the infinite sky, is magical, regardless of how often it's applied or how well-known it is in any given community.

I get your need to feel superior among complete strangers, but there is literally no reason to get this butthurt.

>>53161431
Listen, you combative fuck.

Read the fucking post. It was not offered up to support any side in your inane argument.

It was presented as a background to the question that accompanied it; whether game designers just use 'it works through invisible forces' as their definition of magic.

>>53161464
>Something that can be reliably reproduced may still be based on forces that have nothing to do with the natural world.
Well, there is a problem with the reliability, but OK. Still. IF they clearly contradict the natural order of world, it's supernatural.

The discussion started with someone stating that he does not understand why settings were magic is common still treat it as supernatural.

My argument is that supernaturality is a condition of magic, period. And that if you have a fictional settings with causality and natural order different from ours, but equally as understood as we understand casuality and natural order in our world, taking advantage of it is not magic, not not-supernatural. You can remove supernaturality from your fiction entirely (even while maintaing elements that would be seen as magic should they happen in OUR world - like say, summoning fire through your words), but you can't remove it from the idea of magic itself.

That is all. What the fuck are we discussing about here, beyond that? There is no fucking further discussion here.

Is it supernatural? Then you can call it magic.
Is it not supernatural? Then it is not magic in the first place. That is fucking all.


>, but there is literally no reason to get this butthurt.
You cretins don't understand something, I'm doing you a favor and explaining it. SOMETHING ONE OF YOU IDIOTS EXPLICITLY ASKED TO BE EXPLAINED TO HIM.

See this post?
>Why is magic almost always treated like it's supernatural,
That is a question. I'm answering it for him. You people are the ones shitting their pants because you don't like what I'm saying, regardless of whenever I'm right or wrong. I might be angry here because I'm dealing with retards, but you shitstain are angry because I'm right and you don't like that.

So which one of us is worse off here?

>>53161565
We'll see when your first aneurysm hits at the tender age of roughly a week from now.

Magically.

File: 1488212399062.jpg (132KB, 383x566px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 383x566px

>>53161565
You are now aware that "Magic", as used in most settings, is not the same as your autistic special snowflake definition of magic that isn't even historically accurate.
Reminder that to many ancient societies the entire point of magic was that it wasn't special and supernatural but that it was literally and unironically part of the natural order and natural world. There was nothing supernatural about the high priestess of wodanz blessing the big dicked germanic tribesmen out for a raid, because the gods were a thing to them and part of the natural world - not above it.

>>53161692
autist btfo in a tenth the character count

>>53161662
What is worse?
Being annoyed by idiots?
Or being an annoying idiot?

Yeah, I'm no Sidharta, and delusional idiots do make me mad. And I admit, that is not great.
But you should be far more concerned with the fact you - more specifically your absolute stupidity and massive insecurity is the thing annoying others. That should be your real worry here.

>>53161692
>special snowflake definition of magic that isn't even historically accurate.
Dude, you are saying that cheap fantasy trope thoughtlessly borrowing an actual an actual real world concept as studied by countless scholars is the "proper use", and that the people who actually studied the subject matter are all autists.

Are you fucking serious here? Is this how far you willing to go just to avoid admitting (to yourself, nobody else) than you have been wrong?

>Reminder that to many ancient societies the entire point of magic was that it wasn't special and supernatural
So... sources on this? Because I'm fairly sure Frazer, Levi-Strauss, Brown, Evans-Pritchard, Randall, Eliade, Campbell, Sperber or Peterson all deeply disgree there. Magical practices may have been frequent, but definitely always viewed as something special. And the fact that classical mythological world includes both natural AND supernatural realities (again, Eliade is probably the best one describing this coexistence of different levels of reality, read Myth of Eternal Return) does not make it "not supernatural". It just means that supernaturality is taken into account about as much as naturality.

>There was nothing supernatural about the high priestess
There was everything supernatural about it. That is why such things have been done by priests and priestess, or in very special time of year or month, and accompanied by a whole complex set of rituals. The rituality, the exceptionality those who are involved etc... are way to connect the natural and supernatural. That why shamans have to go through inititiations etc...

>>53161938
>Dude, you are saying that cheap fantasy trope thoughtlessly borrowing an actual an actual real world concept as studied by countless scholars is the "proper use", and that the people who actually studied the subject matter are all autists.
Yes, because we are talking about it in the context of /tg/. Guess what bitchboy - Arcane Magic is Magic and casting Wish is Magic, Word of God, your autism and useless degree be damned.

>So... sources on this? Because I'm fairly sure Frazer, Levi-Strauss, Brown, Evans-Pritchard, Randall, Eliade, Campbell, Sperber or Peterson all deeply disgree there
You misunderstand all of them, dropping names doesn't make you actually correct. The entire point is that the gods are special - but still accessible, and somewhat predictable / repeatable. They aren't supernatural, in fact in many cases there was nothing more natural because they were often reflections of nature, or even nature itself.

File: question_mark_nick_young.gif (1MB, 268x274px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 268x274px

>>53161692
>Reminder that to many ancient societies the entire point of magic was that it wasn't special and supernatural but that it was literally and unironically part of the natural order and natural world. There was nothing supernatural about the high priestess of wodanz blessing the big dicked germanic tribesmen out for a raid, because the gods were a thing to them and part of the natural world - not above it.
If to those ancient societies, magic was just a part of the natural world, why bother with priests and druids and shamans when you could just teach everyone to invoke the rituals of Osirus and Isis?

Just because ancient societies considered supernatural things a part of reality doesn't mean they considered supernatural things a part of the world...

They had a pretty good grasp on normal things, and extraordinary things, and the supernatural was a different world from the normal world that would occasionally seep into the real world.

After all, the supernatural was invented to explain away rare unknown events like solar eclipses and shit.

>>53162070
Because priests doing it was also part of the natural order? Are you dumb? Like there were often birth or blood requirements for it too because only some people were 'chosen' or shit. Chinese people simultaneously understood that the moon reflected light from the Sun and that lunar eclipses were the Earth's shadow passing over the Moon but they still assigned mystical power to an otherwise mundane event due to symbolism, but not because it was 'supernatural' but because the moon, as the "tai'in" or "greatest Yin" being covered by a shadow cast by the earth from the "tai'yang" or "greatest Yang" is naturally powerful. That's the thing. They didn't necessarily distinguish between natural and supernatural.

>>53161997
>es, because we are talking about it in the context of /tg/.
Oh come on, have some fucking dignity. You were the dipshit who just called me autistic, now you are making an argument that "in my fucking little bubble of a website I got used to this use of the word and that makes it the only valid, fuck off and stop reminding me that there is a word outside of it?"
Really? That is what you are going with here? God damn what a piece of human garbage you are. Do you have ANY fucking self-awareness?

>You misunderstand all of them,
So first of all, I've read them, you did not. Second of all: no. Unless they all also misunderstood each other, and my teachers also misunderstood them, and my atestation misunderstood them, and my accrediting comittee also misunderstood them, and the people who reviewed my articles on this subject also misunderstood them.

>dropping names
Dude, you just made a claim about "totally how magic was" without providing a SINGLE fucking source for that. You don't get to scream "name droppign" when somebody provides you with a list of authors addressing the subject.
It's basic logic: if you don't know these authors, you CAN'T CLAIM to know how magic was and is understood in real world. YOU JUST DON'T HAVE THE EDUCATION. YOU DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION TO MAKE SUCH CLAIMS.

And I fucking do. And I understand that hurts you, but Jesus if you are a human being, you must be able to fucking accept that you have been wrong to make certain judgements at time.

>The entire point is that the gods are special
You see, this is the problem.
The entire point is that gods don't matter you idiot. That they are a secondary product of sacred beliefs, which go deeper that the entity of a god itself. You literally had not read ANY of these guys. God fucking dammit. Half of these authors entirely cross gods out of the equation. It's the existence of SACRED and mythological model. God is only a secondary product of that.

>>53162132
>Because priests doing it was also part of the natural order?
Except the whole point is that there was multiple different orders to the world. Mundane, sacred, supernatural - each being a completely different layer of the world that people very clearly distinguished between? Hence the separation between sacred and mundane acts, necessity of rituals as part of magical actions, special casts for performing special tasks etc.. How do you not understand that?

Your argument is that if they believed in it, it was no longer supernatural? Despite the fact that to them, the two were CLEARLY differenciated by the very existence of things like priesthood, taboos and rituals? THE FUCK?

>>53162139
>Oh come on, have some fucking dignity
Except you're literally using the word differently from everyone else. When someone says "magic" they're not using your special snowflake definition, they're using it as everyone else understands them in casual conversation. Now mind you, I actually agree that it can't be 'magical' if it's described in that world's physics - but you and I both know what people really mean, and you're just nitpicking because you want to sound smart.

>So first of all, I've read them, you did not. Second of all: no. Unless they all also misunderstood each other, and my teachers also misunderstood them, and my atestation misunderstood them, and my accrediting comittee also misunderstood them, and the people who reviewed my articles on this subject also misunderstood them.
Perhaps you're all dumb then for studying meaningless drivel?

>The entire point is that gods don't matter you idiot. That they are a secondary product of sacred beliefs, which go deeper that the entity of a god itself. You literally had not read ANY of these guys. God fucking dammit. Half of these authors entirely cross gods out of the equation. It's the existence of SACRED and mythological model. God is only a secondary product of that.
Maybe they're trying too hard? Have you not considered the idea that the very existence of 'supernatural' shit is self contradictory because you have to access it from the natural world? How can something be 'supernatural' yet exist in the 'natural world'? It's a distinction that actually kills itself because the natural world includes the entire world, and is not split down a line of how humans decide to percieve it.

>>53162170
Except all of those are part of the natural order. Mundane, Sacred, Supernatural, they are all part of the normal way the world works, and if they're part of the normal way the world works, then it can't be magical because by your own logic magic is shit that isn't part of the normal way the world works.

Stop arguing about magic nerds.

>>53162259
You know the autist needs to have the last word
I mean both of them

Stop pretending anyone can empirically determine a correct definition of supernatural.

You might consider all of existence natural by definition; otherwise it would not exist. From that point of view, the very notion of the supernatural is just a bit of fiction.

Or you might genuinely feel that things can exist outside of the whole reality we consider natural.

You are never going to reach a satisfying conclusion unless you agree on what 'supernatural' even is.

>>53151901
If you give a broad enough definition of feudalism than sure, all of those countries were feudal. But then your definition is utterly meaningless and tells someone little about the actual system involved. Feudalism like Fascism has never had a scholarly consensus on what it specifically means, there being a range of definitions from very broad to very narrow. Don't act as if there is an absolute definition that everyone who discusses history uses, there isn't.

>>53153291
Let him be. Some people just can't take someone having a different historiographical view than theirs.

>>53162264
Where's that webm of the buttered slice of bread tied to the cat and left to fall generating infinite energy

>>53155156
Non-existant. Science fantasy (and fantasy science for that matter) are both shitty sub-genres that don't deserve to exist.

>>53162208
>Except you're literally using the word differently from everyone else.
Except for, among others, all the authors I've named. And all of my colleagues. And most people outside of this board in general. And actually many people on this board too - as the other guy who called you out on this bullshit proved.
Actually, it's really just you who is using it wrong. Most people use it inexpertly, but still generally respect it's actual real-world and academic meaning. It's just you who insist on a completely different terminology that needs to be completely disconnected from reality for.. why again? Because otherwise, you were wrong?

>Perhaps you're all dumb then for studying meaningless drivel?
Dude, you have been arguing with me about this meaningless drivel for several hours now, so this argument would reflect as poorly at you as it would at me, but really... what the fuck, man? Literally just insulting EVERYTHING that suggests that you might be wrong now.
That it. Something forcing your to question yourself? MEANINGLES DRIVEL! ALL IT. SHUT UP!
Again: you are a human being. Act like one. You are literally screaming out in public "look at how pathetic I am" here: there is absolutely nothing you can achieve here by screaming insults at people who are more educated on the subject matter than you are. Especially since clearly, that subject matter is as important to you as it was to them. I mean, you are still caring enough to continue this shit: hell, you are so desperately clinging to the need to be right despite evidence that you throw insults at some of the best psychologists and antropologists and scholars of their field in the last century.

That all after saying that "I just misunderstood them", should I add. So I am wrong and misunderstood them, but it's also drivel, so what is it?

Come one. Stop. Think what the fuck you are doing here. How are continuing this?

>>53162472
>Again: you are a human being. Act like one. You are literally screaming out in public "look at how pathetic I am" here: there is absolutely nothing you can achieve here by screaming insults at people who are more educated on the subject matter than you are. Especially since clearly, that subject matter is as important to you as it was to them. I mean, you are still caring enough to continue this shit: hell, you are so desperately clinging to the need to be right despite evidence that you throw insults at some of the best psychologists and antropologists and scholars of their field in the last century.
The appeal to authority is not a fucking argument. It actually isn't. You need to present their points, I don't give a shit about their names and credentials. If you already have, then I disagree and have summarized why. Literally even >>53162286 is more coherent and logical than you, who cannot make an actual argument and simply must fall on vague terminology and appeal to authority. In the same way someone dropping Freud's name never made him right even in Freud's heyday, you dropping names doesn't make you right.

>Actually, it's really just you who is using it wrong. Most people use it inexpertly, but still generally respect it's actual real-world and academic meaning. It's just you who insist on a completely different terminology that needs to be completely disconnected from reality for.. why again? Because otherwise, you were wrong?
But you do understand what people meant by magic.

>>53107316
>>53109799
You'd be surprised what a knowledge of geophysics can do to get both the brain's rational and imagination boners going!
>http://www.worlddreambank.org/P/PLANETS.HTM

>>53162554
First of all, so I absolutely love how just have been called out on an obvious contradiction and insane hypocrisy within the span of two posts and you are just going on as if nothing had happened. That is cool, I guess.

>The appeal to authority is not a fucking argument.
Actually, in academia it kinda is. I understand that you problably never encountered this, but citing and refering to authors with higher authority is actually the absolute core of all scholarly work. It's the most basic condition of any academic work. It's not really "an appeal to authority" (which actually means something entirely different than you think it does), it's just recognition of authority and proper use of the work they had already done.

Second of all: you expect something this complicated to be provided to you in a single post of two on this board. YOU have never bothered to study it at all. But you still automatically assume that they are all wrong and you are unquestionably right: just by default. And that you are right until... well, actually I suspect that you will assume that you are right always, completely regardless of what anyone will ever prove to you. But for now you just expect everyone to feed you everything, or else THEY ARE WRONG.

I can't reproduce the entire work of those authors here. I did provide the base argument already, which you ignored. Like most of what I said. If you were interested, you'd already be googling them up and reading yourself.

Until you actually at least read those authors, you are wrong, by default. Because you have ZERO actual knowledge of the subject. And even if you question the authority of those guys: that still leaves you with less that what I have, or those guys have.

There is literally ZERO actual, rational explanation why you still assume that you are right. Yet you do. And that is fucked up in really rather profound fucking ways.

You are actually mentally ill.

>>53162842
>You are actually mentally ill.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.

>>53162842
Why do you keep omitting subjects? I'm ignoring 'contradictions' and 'hypocrisy' because...I haven't been called out on it. I don't care about all those authors. I really don't. We're on /tg/. When someone says magic, you understand he uses it loosely and to mean something different. If you ask a person from most threads here is Fireball or Dominate Person counts as magic, the answer is of course yes, your snowflake definition be damned. And I haven't been arguing about it for "several hours" - you're talking to multiple people, my first post is the Macha post.

>Until you actually at least read those authors, you are wrong, by default. Because you have ZERO actual knowledge of the subject. And even if you question the authority of those guys: that still leaves you with less that what I have, or those guys have.
Literally not an argument, especially in philosophy or history or anthropology. I refuse - *refuse* - to believe that you got by in fucking philosophy of all subjects by resorting to some of the most obvious and glaring logical fallacies possible.

>but citing and refering to authors with higher authority is actually the absolute core of all scholarly work
It isn't. Citing and refering to authors who are considered to have done their work is. ANY author or paper who has done their work can and should be cited, it doesn't matter if they're a greenhorn with only one paper out, if it's relevant and well written you should use it in your study. Furthermore, simply citing never makes you right - you need to syntheize and use their work to support your own point. The existence of previous greats neither makes them correct nor invulnerable to discrediting (as Freud has been discredited for example) nor does it lend their considerable weight to your utterly hollow argument. Good day sir.

>>53162842
He's not assuming he's right, he's actually telling you why he thinks he's right, you're just not listening
How fucking far up your own ass are you?

>>53162922
It's the last thing he said. I don't care about the argument but that's kind of a cop-out

>>53162922
You can't tell a difference between an observation and argument. Why does every retard do this:

AN INSULT IS NOT AN AD HOMINEM. AN OBSERVATION ABOUT ONES POOR MENTAL STATE IS ALSO NOT AD HOMINEM.

A logical fallacy happens when instead of supporting argument of his claim, one uses something masked as an argument, but which really does not have validation strength. For an example, if use purely personal quality or attribute of my opponent as counter-argument.
For an example, if I said "Goedels incompleteness theorem is wrong because Goedel was quarter jewish, and we all know jews just want money and attention."

See: that would be using Goedel's jewish ancestry to question the math that he has done. That is an ad hominem.

"YOU ARE A PIECE OF SHIT THAT DOES NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT AN ARGUMENT IS" is not an argument. I'm not using it to weaken your claim, neither to support mine. I'm merely correctly stating obvious fact of this situation.

>>53163016
It is still a fallacy. Someone with so little faith in their argument they resort to insults is a coward.

File: 1410687670224.jpg (25KB, 324x278px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 324x278px

>>53163048
mate...

>>53163034
Unless you can prove the person you allege is "mentally ill" with a proper DSM diagnosis it is absolutely an insult not a factual observation.

You are ABSOLUTELY attempting to discredit the claim by suggesting without proof your opponent, who simply demands integrity and academic rigour, is non compos mentis.

You are not stating any facts.

>>53163034
That isn't me. You're just retarded. You don't know how to actually use authority claims (which is not namedropping). You don't know how to actually write arguments that don't amount to I'M RIGHT. Re-read your own arguments. You simply dismiss what everyone else says and assume yourself to be right. You assume that because you are right, everyone else is wrong, and because they're wrong, you must be right. It's circular.

>>53163070
That still isn't me.

>>53162973
>I haven't been called out on it.
>hat all after saying that "I just misunderstood them", should I add.
That is actually what the words "calling someone out" mean. Also:
>I don't care about all those authors.
You don't really matter. Those authors do, but you don't. Just because you declare that you don't care does not mean that they aren't relevant.

Furthermore, you said this, right?
>Reminder that to many ancient societies the entire point of magic was that it wasn't special and supernatural but that it was literally and unironically part of the natural order and natural world.
I asked you for sources on it, by the way, and you still had not provided a single name.

How did you get to this claim. You obviously thought that this is right. WHY did you think that? What gave you the idea that this is actually a truthful statement?
And how can you say something like that, and then say "I don't care about the fact that there are key authors (in fact all authors adressing this subject) which clearly disagree with that."

You do realize that it's justification of statements like these that is really the issue here. And that those authors are KEY to being able to judge if statements like that are true or not.
Or any further authors you could have provided.

>Literally not an argument,
Dude, you don't even KNOW what the word "argument" means, much less have ANY idea how academic discussion works. And yes, that is precisely how it works. If you don't know anything, not even your opponents claims, you can't declare them wrong.

You can't say "Kant is wrong" without having read fucking Kant you god damn piece of shit. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you do that.
If you don't know Kant, if you are completely unfamiliar with his work, you can't make judgements about validity of the concept of noumenon.

You don't know ANYTHING. You can't reflect reality accurately if YOU DON'T KNOW REALITY.

>>53163095
>Unless you can prove the person you allege is "mentally ill" with a proper DSM diagnosis it is absolutely an insult not a factual observation.
Actually, assuming that he is right and than entire academic field is wrong without having so much as knowing the name of that field, that suggest a pretty clear case of severe delusion of grandeur. The pile of shit is actually thinking than some of the best authors in the field, despite not even knowing what the field is about.

Yeah, that is mental illness not only in my book, but I'm pretty sure DSM would agree there.

>You are ABSOLUTELY attempting to discredit the claim by suggesting without proof your opponent,
I'm discrediting his claim based on the fact that he has not provided an argument. I'm further adding that the fact that he believes he is right without an argument might be suggestive of mental illness.
His mental illness is not what makes his claims wrong. His insistence of being right in face of overwhelming evidence that he is not, insane delusions of gradneur, and inability to behave according to most basic requirements of human decency are suggesting mental illness. But that is largely a separate issue.

If somebody who sticks of shit claims that the earth is square and denying the relevance of satelite photos and personal evidence of astronauts as "namecalling and appeal to authority", me saying "By the way you smell like shit" is not actually ad hominem, it's just an observation that just further illustrates how sorry the whole situation is wrong, not an argument against his claims about square Earth.

>>53163134
>You don't know ANYTHING. You can't reflect reality accurately if YOU DON'T KNOW REALITY

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument

>>53163098
>You're just retarded. You don't know how to actually use authority claims
You know, this would perhaps have some more weight if you had used any kind of authority claim yourself "correctly" through out this discussion. But considering that you don't even know a single authority on this subject (besides yourself, obviously", this complaint really kinda lacks any punch.

You don't know any authority on this field. So what the fuck? Why do you think you can make these claims?

>You don't know how to actually write arguments that don't amount to I'M RIGHT.
Actually, they amount to "here are authors and publications on the subject, study for yourself and you'll see that I'm right.
Just don't go around claiming how others are wrong if you yourself aren't even remotely educated on the subject".

>You assume that because you are right, everyone else is wrong,
No. I assume that I'm right and you are wrong. There are plenty of other people who I assume are right too.
The reason why I assume that I'm right is because I've spend a near decade and got a quite a lot of achievements in this field. And because I've learned from some really good teachers.

I assume I'm right based on the education I've gained.

So the real question here is: why do you assume you are right?

>>53163210
>that suggest a pretty clear case of severe delusion of grandeur. The pile of shit is actually thinking than some of the best authors in the field, despite not even knowing what the field is about.
>Yeah, that is mental illness not only in my book, but I'm pretty sure DSM would agree there.

Great. Still isn't a formal diagnosis unless you're suddenly a doctor.

I can be fairly sure I got cancer based on circumstantial evidence but I won't be getting chemo until an oncologist proves it.

>might be suggestive of mental illness.

Weasel words. You said, AND I QUOTE, "You are actually mentally ill."

ACTUALLY. No ambiguity. A CATEGORIC ACCUSATION STATED AS FACT.

>me saying "By the way you smell like shit" is not actually ad hominem, it's just an observation that just further illustrates how sorry the whole situation is wrong

"i should be allowed to insult you while holding you to standards of integrity i refuse to meet"

EITHER COME BACK WITH A DIAGNOSIS OR RETRACT YOUR INSINUATION OF MENTAL ILLNESS.

>>53163215
I already explained the difference between observation and an argument.

>>53163134
>WHY did you think that? What gave you the idea that this is actually a truthful statement?
As an example, many Greek and Nordic gods were parts of nature, as in, they were nature itself. If nature is not natural, then that begs the question "what is?".

>Dude, you don't even KNOW what the word "argument" means,
No, that's not how citation works. Citation is not "haha you haven't read that, I'm right I guess!". Citation is "so here's part of my argument and citing this guy in my paper is shorthand, I'm going to use (one or more of) his conclusions". That's actually how academic discussion works, otherwise one would have to read more than is physically possible within a human lifetime to begin discussion of anything since you'd need to read the citations of citations too, and so on.

>You don't know ANYTHING. You can't reflect reality accurately if YOU DON'T KNOW REALITY.
Except the fact of the matter is that someone attacking Kant can easily do so, if Kant's arguments are provided to him. Unfortunately what you are doing is more akin to stating your arguments, then saying WHY HAVEN'T YOU READ ALL THESE AUTHORS??? THEY'D TELL YOU I'M RIGHT!!!! Which doesn't cut it in any academic discussion. In academic discussoin I shouldn't be attacking them without reading, but it's not a leap to ask their points to be summarized for me so I might get an idea of what you're talking about. As I've already said - you haven't done so, or if you have, I've already told you why I disagree.

>>53163269
>You know, this would perhaps have some more weight
This is the "tu quoque" fallacy used in a bizarre way. I haven't cited any authorities but that doesn't mean you get to use them willy nilly and incorrectly. If anything I have done better because I haven't dishonestly used random namedrops to falsely bolster my own position but simply accepted that I don't know any authorities and didn't try to falsely cite them. You have continiously failed to actually cite them.

>>53162989
>He's not assuming he's right, he's actually telling you why he thinks he's right, you're just not listening
No, he is not. His last argument was this:
>Reminder that to many ancient societies the entire point of magic was that it wasn't special and supernatural
He literally had not made a SINGLE claim to support that evidence.
When I simply provided a list of authors that clearly disagree, everything else devolved into him explain how he is right and how he does not have acknowledge any authority, or make any further supporting claims. Everything else is him just screaming "Ad authority" when faced with authority of other authors.

But if the sorry sack of shit does not recognize academic authority, then how the FUCK does it actually recognize any validity of a claim? It belives itself to be right on principle, and disregards other authors on principle. Without acknowledging them, or without providing actual justification or validation of his own claims. Everything that happend in the last fifteen or more posts is it making excuses why it can maintain belief that it is right without having to ever go through examination of it's own beliefs. And that is what I'm fucking taking an issue here.

>>53163476
I think the biggest problem is that he's made clear his view that supernatural stuff is actually just human perception of a different form of the natural world, ergo it's part of the natural world in the first place.
I don't know what either of you are arguing, I just know it's you against like ten dudes and you've been at it alone for hours. Do you not have a job?

File: Lefiya67.jpg (37KB, 352x651px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 352x651px

Weren't these threads supposed to be chill?

>>53163662

>>53163546

>>53163476
Then again, philosophy is not an exact science. What makes a writer an authority in the field? How much of their works can be empirically peer-reviewed?

It's all substantially more subjective than physics.

>>53163680
Did you just make an early thread

>>53163680
That's kinda stupid, we are close to post limit anyway.

>>53163355
>Except the fact of the matter is that someone attacking Kant can easily do so, if Kant's arguments are provided to him.
No, not really. If somebody comes in and says "well I think Kant is bullshit and you are all wrong, no, I did not read him, guess you better explain him to me, but I still am sure he is bullshit", he is not provided the arguments.

I don't know what reality you live in. You are expected to know the subject matter yourself. It's YOUR responsibility to understand the subject matter first and foremost. Nobody is going to educate you if you just waltz in and tell them they are wrong, and then expect them to actually teach you the subject matter.

Here:
http://users.uoa.gr/~cdokou/MythLitMA/Eliade-EternalReturn.pdf
Open on page (The Problem) and start there.

Then follow up with this:
http://www.templeofearth.com/books/goldenbough.pdf
Chapter 3 should where you particularly pay attention.

Then you can look up the authors one by one, though most of them aren't freely accessible anymore.

Until then, fuck off. I'm not here to teach you what takes years to understand in a few minutes. I'm here merely to tell you that you can't claim to understand something if you don't even start studying it. End of discussion. I'm sick of you. Fuck off.

>>53163718
The entire thread is sick of you desu
No I'm not one of the twelve dozen dudes you're arguing against

>>53163703
>What makes a writer an authority in the field?
Academic consensus does.

>How much of their works can be empirically peer reviewed.
None, because it's not an exact science. But there are other ways to weight ones validity than empirical ones. And they are not subjective. They are normative.

>>53163752
>They are normative
mathematics student here
Unless that normative scale is "raw logical coherence" then that's full of shit, and logical coherence is more or less meaningless since it can wind you up with some pretty nonsensical shit and more to the point meaningless shti.

Trying to make a grimdark scifi world for a homebrew.

Would having all life be some variant of modified humans be interesting or just really dumb?
I.E humans breed to be eaten like cows, people who breathe in carbon and out oxygen, people who grow fruit, people with metal skin

>>53163857
>Unless that normative scale is "raw logical coherence"
What the fuck is "raw logical coherence"?
Normative scale is created by (various forms) of consensus. Informal logic one of the tools that is often used in non-empiric studies along many others, but it's just informal logic, because "raw" (which I'm going to assume is what you call what the rest of the world calls "formal") logic does not apply to real non-mathematical world all that great, as you seem to be aware.

All methods of non-empirical studies are inherently heuristic and don't have the same degree of precision as sciences do, that is a fact that does not really need much more attention. They also address subjects that don't allow for such precision in the first place. Non-science academia is heuristic by definition, based on the assumption that it's better to create theories with some merit (even if they aren't nearly as reliable as scienticfic ones) than not having any theories at all.

>>53163935
That's... very out there. I could see it as some very trippy, surrealist, one-off thing.

You'd have to be a very good writer to pull it off, though.

>>53163716
So it was needed anyway.
Yeah, that sounds stupid.
Anyway for people who want to discuss about their settings:
>>53163546
>>53163546
>>53163546
>>53163546
>>53163546

>>53163975
>real nonmathematical world
Do you know what else doesn't apply well to the real world? Philosophy. Because philosophy is personal. You use other people's philosophy as food for thought but should logically develop your own philosophy.

>>53163752
>Academic consensus
Alright, so basically more dudes. An argument based on dudes all the way down?

>>53106739
Who /intowbgbecausetheworldisfuckedanditdrownsoutthesoundsofthedeathofmyfuture/ here?

>>53164076
>Do you know what else doesn't apply well to the real world?
That is a very understandable statement, but also very wrong. I entirely understand why most people don't understand how philosophy applies to the world: it's honestly as much a fault of many philosophers than as of it's critics. Things are however a little more complicated than that, but thankfully, most people don't have to bother with it: impact and application of philosphy on real world luckly does not require people to be aware of it and know how it works.

>You use other people's philosophy as food for thought but should logically develop your own philosophy.
This, however, is wrong and not understandable. There is absolutely no point in developing your own philosophy if there are already solid and functional philosophies available. Of course, if you actually have strong enough evidence that the philosophies currently existing are failing to work, then it's time to develop new ones. But again, not for personal purposes. On an individual level, philosophy is really very impractical most of the time. Unless you mean by philosophy something extremely vague, like "world-view in general".

>>53164120
Yep. That is how 99.9 percent of all knowledge ever was created. It sounds bad for people disconnected from history, but actually it's a surprisingly efficient model. Can be improved and expanded upon, but should never be underrestimated.

>>53164195
Philosophy doesn't apply to the real world in that it is personal. The only way it applies to the real world is people subscribing to beliefs and acting upon them, the same way religion acts upon the world (religion also qualifies as a philosophy or at least includes one for the most part too). Mathematical logic applies to the real world too. Philosophy is personal. It cannot be global. A Philosophy describes nothing except what it in particular wishes to describe and is applicable to nothing beyond what you allow it to be applicable to. That's literally how it is. Utilitarianism for example is not a meaningful philosophy if you disagree with either its original assumption or any of the steps within - but disagreeing doesn't make it wrong, because there is not and cannot be a correct or incorrect philosophy, only a logically unsound one.

>>53164297
I'd love to pick up on this, but I'll have to go for a while. If you are seriously interested in this subject (I'm obviously going to argue that you are not right), check the thread over the next few hours, I'll try to get back to you. For now, I'll have to leave it as it is.

>>53110054
Whats flowing settings?

Robert Smith
[email protected]

>>53163662
jerking off.

>>53164343
It's great that you guys are having opinions and shit but can you do it on /his/

>>53155156
I like it very much. I long for the days where the line between scifi and fantasy was abolished. So much scifi was founded in science fantasy.

File: tumblr_mgyy0vP7p81rdy3s5o1_500.jpg (121KB, 500x571px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 500x571px

Okay, I'm making something that's a fantasy Bronze-Age setting, and I'm currently working on one of the major Empires of the setting. Currently I'm trying to decide how many provinces the Empire should have, so I can know where to best start drawing the ethnic and cultural lines.

The Empire is roughly the size of the Macedonian Empire before Alexander's death, the tech level is likewise comparable to the Macedonian Empire, and it is a Low-to-mid magic setting, with most of it concentrated in the priesthood of the State Religion

>>53168273
Empire this big is going to be unstable. In fact most empires transform dramatically in terms of provinces, administrative divides, ethnical and cultural patterns.

>>53168346
The whole thing about the empire is that, without being directly controlled by a God-King using politics, an enforced unified religion, and fuedalism to keep his nation intact. IF he ever completes his apotheosis to th next plane, or dies, his whole nation is going to fall apart

>>53168500
Not personally a big fan of this "giant empire kept together by a god-king" trope being employed seriously. Which might be hypocritical, because I have a "God-Emperor" somewhere in my settings too, but in my case the joke is that the emperors God-like status is not really grounded any actual powers, it's just part of the state-religion and mythological narrative, the real internal politics are entirely different, and the Empire is already falling apart. Plus, it's quite a bit smaller one, though still the biggest nation in my world just geography-wise.

But if you are using these supernatural powers to help you form the nation, you can pretty much do what ever you want in terms of divisions, cultural and ethnical borders etc, real world political and social realities don't really have to limit you. It seems more a question of providing compelling mythology and explaning how the God-Emperor, a single person, can have such a tremendous power to actually affect the stability of the realm, and then take the political structures from there.

I don't think there is any "appropriate" number of provinces to make. But I would advice against overlapping your provinces with your ethnical and cultural lines, because historically those often hugely missed each other, and the differences between them often lead to some of the more interesting problems.

>>53168273
I hate to say this but for the Aegean and the Near East the Bronze Age had been over for approximately a millenia at Alexander's death. A tech level comparable to the Macedonian Empire really does not jibe with being described as Bronze-Age.

You could have a look at lists of Achaemenid satrapies as a starting point. It also depends on how big you want the provinces to be with either a few centralised districts containing a large number of cultures grouped together for administrative ease, or many smaller ones where each province maps more closely to a individual culture or even only one sub-group.

>>53168652
>>53168749
I see. I guess I should probably decrease the size to make it less ludicrous.

Also I now have some more research to do. Thanks /wbg/

>>53168890
Another thing to consider is that unless the Empire has conducted some sweeping administrative reforms (not likely if feudal) then the provinces are going to be quite heavily influenced by what they were like before there new rulers showed up. That could be absorbing an independant and relatively homogenous culture as a new province, or it be wresting a multi-ethnic province created for admin reasons from another empire.

In either case, subcultures and minor cultures far too small or unimportant to be worth administering on an imperial level will be shoved in alongside more important cultures (and probably already come pre-packaged on conquest).

The provinces of the Macedonian Empire were copied verbatim from the defeated Persians to continue the Alexander analogy.