Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

(Removed by Author)

For the first question, it's probably because swords have always been the poster-boy of medieval-era warfare not just for their capabilities as weapons of war - although they are much renowned for such capabilities - but also as symbols. If you had a sword then you were clearly wealthy enough to own one, skilled enough to use one, and were thought to have more chivalrous intentions.

Axes have always been much more common due to being cheaper and easier to produce, but they lack the inherent symbolism of a sword.

As for why fantasy characters don't use other things, usually it'll just boil down to author preference. A sword may mirror its real life use as a symbol as well as a weapon, or it may be that the author understands sword combat better than other types. Axes are used often enough, but again it may just come down to preference.

A spear, however, has the added issue of being mainly a formation - at least massed - weapon. It's meant to be used en masse to keep the enemy at a distance and be used for thrusting, which makes for a boring combat in the hands of a main character unless it's something ostentatious like a glaive, or the character has some sort of masterful skill with using a spear at ranges similar to that of a sword or axe.

The ability of a sword to make cut and thrust actions lends a sense of flow to written combat, as the character guts an enemy and with a single fluid action pulls his sword free, turns and cuts down an enemy looking to strike him from behind, parries a blow from another weapon arcing towards him and embeds his blade up to its hilt in the surprised foe. An axe is also quick enough to lend fluidity to the combat, with its user able to hack off an arm, duck under a swung blade, and behead the bewildered enemy.

A character wielding a spear just doesn't get that freedom of movement in a melee. He stabs from range, and his spear can't exactly act as a quarter-staff to block and parry before delivering precise blows to weak spots like knees when the flow of combat allows. It'd probably be doable, but compared to swords and axes it'd make for a clumsy fight unless your hero is some sort of God with a spear which, given his apparent lack of strength - as he can't use a sword - seems unlikely.

As for bows, simply grabbing a bow and calling it a day doesn't work, which is exactly how crossbows became widespread. You can't simply give an army a load of bows and expect them to be able to use them with skill. Bows need training, a good eye for judging distance and the ability to make adjustments for windspeeds, judge the flight of the arrow, the strength of the draw, and fire in unison. Even if the person using it is alone, the skill required is far more than is necessary than if you handed them a sharp object and pointed them at the enemy.

A character that uses a bow needs to be proficient, and that will come more easily to some characters than others. Imagine if Gimli in LotR was forced to fight using a bow instead of his axe; plot-buffs notwithstanding he'd likely be absolutely hopeless, even if he'd practised a bit beforehand.

To answer the actual question, I'd say it's simply because a sword is perhaps the most recognisable weapon of that sort of era, and is relatively simple to write about in nearly every circumstance.

Disclaimer: Most of this post is pure opinion and I might well be BSing.

 Avatar 720 wrote:
For the first question, it's probably because swords have always been the poster-boy of medieval-era warfare not just for their capabilities as weapons of war - although they are much renowned for such capabilities - but also as symbols. If you had a sword then you were clearly wealthy enough to own one, skilled enough to use one, and were thought to have more chivalrous intentions.

Axes have always been much more common due to being cheaper and easier to produce, but they lack the inherent symbolism of a sword.

As for why fantasy characters don't use other things, usually it'll just boil down to author preference. A sword may mirror its real life use as a symbol as well as a weapon, or it may be that the author understands sword combat better than other types. Axes are used often enough, but again it may just come down to preference.

A spear, however, has the added issue of being mainly a formation - at least massed - weapon. It's meant to be used en masse to keep the enemy at a distance and be used for thrusting, which makes for a boring combat in the hands of a main character unless it's something ostentatious like a glaive, or the character has some sort of masterful skill with using a spear at ranges similar to that of a sword or axe.

The ability of a sword to make cut and thrust actions lends a sense of flow to written combat, as the character guts an enemy and with a single fluid action pulls his sword free, turns and cuts down an enemy looking to strike him from behind, parries a blow from another weapon arcing towards him and embeds his blade up to its hilt in the surprised foe. An axe is also quick enough to lend fluidity to the combat, with its user able to hack off an arm, duck under a swung blade, and behead the bewildered enemy.

A character wielding a spear just doesn't get that freedom of movement in a melee. He stabs from range, and his spear can't exactly act as a quarter-staff to block and parry before delivering precise blows to weak spots like knees when the flow of combat allows. It'd probably be doable, but compared to swords and axes it'd make for a clumsy fight unless your hero is some sort of God with a spear which, given his apparent lack of strength - as he can't use a sword - seems unlikely.

As for bows, simply grabbing a bow and calling it a day doesn't work, which is exactly how crossbows became widespread. You can't simply give an army a load of bows and expect them to be able to use them with skill. Bows need training, a good eye for judging distance and the ability to make adjustments for windspeeds, judge the flight of the arrow, the strength of the draw, and fire in unison. Even if the person using it is alone, the skill required is far more than is necessary than if you handed them a sharp object and pointed them at the enemy.

A character that uses a bow needs to be proficient, and that will come more easily to some characters than others. Imagine if Gimli in LotR was forced to fight using a bow instead of his axe; plot-buffs notwithstanding he'd likely be absolutely hopeless, even if he'd practised a bit beforehand.

To answer the actual question, I'd say it's simply because a sword is perhaps the most recognisable weapon of that sort of era, and is relatively simple to write about in nearly every circumstance.

Disclaimer: Most of this post is pure opinion and I might well be BSing.

Ever since I learned how to use a spear in real life, I would agree kind of, but its not just thrusting. Someone that is an adept at using the spear thanks to martial arts by that time know a spear can be used like an even better version of the sword. But I am biased in that you can be quite aerobic with a spear,

But I don't expect my character to be fantastic in fighting in the beginning. As the story goes on he will get better, but not in a jump cut.

But thank you, I might think about it when I write about it.

A lot of what Avatar said is pretty much it. Swords are the weapons of Nobles, of Knights, of Kings, of Heroes. You can be very bad with a sword, but you can also be very, very good. Axes/Maces/Spears may be easier to make and learn to use, and in general, they come down to the same sort of thing. Axes/maces hit things until they break or fall over. Spears stab things until they poke something important (and as noted, are more effective used en masse- there's a reason Macedonian Phalanxes got Alexander the Great such a huge Empire).

While this may be dangerous in practical terms, I think writing swords can lead to a lot more interesting scene. You can swipe, thrust, parry, riposte, slash, swing, scythe, thrust, hack, stab, clash, pierce, slam with a sword. There's just so many fun verbs you can use. There's also the fact that two guys with swords can 'duel' (no matter how inaccurate/impractical this may be) far easier than a guy with an axe or spear. When was the last time you saw a axe-on-axe 1v1 fight? Probably rather rare, but sword duels can be found in fantasy, history, sci-fi. Everything from Eragon to Warhammer 40k, from Star Wars to The Three Musketeers, you've got guys with swords duelling. I certainly find swords/knives easier to write than anything else.

The bow, as noted, is also a little useless in untrained hands; most young men in the medieval era were required to train extensively with bows from a young age for precisely that reason. And in general combat rather than pitched battle, a bow is also limited in use. Unless you're Legolas or Robin Hood, and you get ambushed in a forest, you've shot maybe two arrows before they're on you, and then the chances are your bow will break if you try and use it up close as a hitting stick.

I see what you're saying about spears and martial arts, but in general, that kind of training is not prevalent (unless, of course, you have a reason for your character to have received it). The reason the spear was such a popular weapon was that you only needed a small amount of metal, and if, for example, you find out the French are invading, you can go round the village, give every man one, and the only instruction you need give is 'stand here, point this bit at the enemy'. It's the simplicity that makes them so effective, but unfortunately doesn't lend itself to amazing writing. With a Glaive or Halberd you can do a lot more, so that might be a route to take.

I'm afraid I can't suggest any reading for Celtic rituals, but the thing to bear in mind is that it was all about nature. They made offerings and worshipped the gods so the sun would rise and set and the plants would grow and the harvest would be good. That sort of stuff is at the heart of it.

I'm not sure what you mean by borderline personalities, could you elaborate?

As for the understatement of magic, it's generally the fact that if magic were more powerful and widespread, it would render its users basically gods among mortals. Being the best swordsman in the land or the fastest archer or the strongest brawler is no good if you're going after a guy who can throw fire or make your nightmares come to life and kill you for him or turn your weapon of choice into a rubber duck with merely a thought. This can work, and if you look at the likes of the Inheritance Cycle or The Icemark Trilogy you can see good examples of powerful magicians; by the last book, Eragon can kill a guy with a twitch of his finger, Galbatorix can make his soldiers unkillable and immune to pain. Oskan in the Icemark books can summon a thunderstorm to blight an army and even do battle with deities.

Having powerful and not understated magic makes magicians so much more powerful than mortals, which can lead to some characters becoming insignificant (this is something I think Eragon does well; the human/dwarf cast still remain as important and in their own way dangerous as the sorcerers and dragons). So by all means go for a greater emphasis on non-passive magic, just be aware of the effect it can (but might not) have on your characters and their developments.

Hope that answers a few questions. Damn, now I want to go and write some fantasy despite being half way through editing a sci-fi series (note to would-be writers: once you've finished the book, the easy bit is done. Editing and proofing will drain your soul and your will to live as you look back and think 'did I really write that?' )

 Paradigm wrote:
A lot of what Avatar said is pretty much it. Swords are the weapons of Nobles, of Knights, of Kings, of Heroes. You can be very bad with a sword, but you can also be very, very good. Axes/Maces/Spears may be easier to make and learn to use, and in general, they come down to the same sort of thing. Axes/maces hit things until they break or fall over. Spears stab things until they poke something important (and as noted, are more effective used en masse- there's a reason Macedonian Phalanxes got Alexander the Great such a huge Empire).

While this may be dangerous in practical terms, I think writing swords can lead to a lot more interesting scene. You can swipe, thrust, parry, riposte, slash, swing, scythe, thrust, hack, stab, clash, pierce, slam with a sword. There's just so many fun verbs you can use. There's also the fact that two guys with swords can 'duel' (no matter how inaccurate/impractical this may be) far easier than a guy with an axe or spear. When was the last time you saw a axe-on-axe 1v1 fight? Probably rather rare, but sword duels can be found in fantasy, history, sci-fi. Everything from Eragon to Warhammer 40k, from Star Wars to The Three Musketeers, you've got guys with swords duelling. I certainly find swords/knives easier to write than anything else.

The bow, as noted, is also a little useless in untrained hands; most young men in the medieval era were required to train extensively with bows from a young age for precisely that reason. And in general combat rather than pitched battle, a bow is also limited in use. Unless you're Legolas or Robin Hood, and you get ambushed in a forest, you've shot maybe two arrows before they're on you, and then the chances are your bow will break if you try and use it up close as a hitting stick.

I see what you're saying about spears and martial arts, but in general, that kind of training is not prevalent (unless, of course, you have a reason for your character to have received it). The reason the spear was such a popular weapon was that you only needed a small amount of metal, and if, for example, you find out the French are invading, you can go round the village, give every man one, and the only instruction you need give is 'stand here, point this bit at the enemy'. It's the simplicity that makes them so effective, but unfortunately doesn't lend itself to amazing writing. With a Glaive or Halberd you can do a lot more, so that might be a route to take.

I'm afraid I can't suggest any reading for Celtic rituals, but the thing to bear in mind is that it was all about nature. They made offerings and worshipped the gods so the sun would rise and set and the plants would grow and the harvest would be good. That sort of stuff is at the heart of it.

I'm not sure what you mean by borderline personalities, could you elaborate?

As for the understatement of magic, it's generally the fact that if magic were more powerful and widespread, it would render its users basically gods among mortals. Being the best swordsman in the land or the fastest archer or the strongest brawler is no good if you're going after a guy who can throw fire or make your nightmares come to life and kill you for him or turn your weapon of choice into a rubber duck with merely a thought. This can work, and if you look at the likes of the Inheritance Cycle or The Icemark Trilogy you can see good examples of powerful magicians; by the last book, Eragon can kill a guy with a twitch of his finger, Galbatorix can make his soldiers unkillable and immune to pain. Oskan in the Icemark books can summon a thunderstorm to blight an army and even do battle with deities.

Having powerful and not understated magic makes magicians so much more powerful than mortals, which can lead to some characters becoming insignificant (this is something I think Eragon does well; the human/dwarf cast still remain as important and in their own way dangerous as the sorcerers and dragons). So by all means go for a greater emphasis on non-passive magic, just be aware of the effect it can (but might not) have on your characters and their developments.

Hope that answers a few questions. Damn, now I want to go and write some fantasy despite being half way through editing a sci-fi series (note to would-be writers: once you've finished the book, the easy bit is done. Editing and proofing will drain your soul and your will to live as you look back and think 'did I really write that?' )

Ah Halbreds would be cool.

Might change it to that then.

But yeah I was planning on making it so that magic is rare and that those that wield it are quite powerful but they have to something that that can use it with (like a wand or a staff or a book.) Without it they are just a man with fancy robes.

But yeah the Celtic rituals I might need to look up sometime.

But I plan on making magic powerful, but within reason. Like people with training or years of experience can wield it and can do battle with armies but they still can be killed. They can't fight deities.

I have many rules of magic that I started to include. Such as blood cannot kill blood. (Siblings can't kill each other with magic, unless you know there dead). There is only so much energy that is inside before it is depleted, once depleted it leaves no life. Magic is dangerous and magical errors happen all the time. There are certain items that protect those who do not utilize magic from the magic, but even that can be overpowered. You cannot make something out of nothing. So you can't make earth while flying in the air, in order to start fire you need a source of heat, more talented the mage the more ideas they can make, so they are more alchemy based that magically based, using the elements around them and bending them to their will.

And hilariously enough, I hate it when they bring characters back from the dead, I think it destroys a sacrifice. It makes that death meaningless. So once a character dies.... There dead.

Magic is great to have but it needs to be within reason. I mean It will be unleashed and it will be shown, but magic is still potent, but not at all common.

Even though the main character is facing a god.

God's also have to follow the rules of magic etc. I wrote quite a bit about magic before I started on the creatures and the countries.

I have a suggestion. Read The Black Company novels by Glen Cook. It is a fantasy series that violates most of the cliches you list. It would be worth it for you to take a look at to see how an author can violate tropes and cliches in a fantasy setting, and how good the result can be.

 Asherian Command wrote:


So I am writing a novel and my main Character, does not use a sword. Instead he uses a spear, why? Because he lacks the strength to wield a sword, and really doesn't like combat, so in order to get him in tip top shape the trainer gives him a spear, because spears are easier to wield and easier to train people with. (Funnily enough he's a lord, and never found the time to take up sword training) Now he will get some special weapon later. Like most fantasy characters get later on, but in the book, I decided to talk about this issue and hit a snag. Why don't characters use axes more?

Ok, last point first, fantasy characters do like axes. Gimli for one, Druss another. Gernally speaking thanks to Tolkien dwarves like axes, and due to norse roots of modern fantasy tropes barbarians like axes also.
The axe in various forms is also a damn good weapon.

Spears are for commoners, yes nobles used them to, especially Samurai. For a Samurai the Yari was the principle melee weapon, but this is outside your genre it appears.
In a bottom line Spears are for peasants because
- they are cheap because of low metal content
- they are for massed combat
- they don't require much skill, though it is possible to be highly skilled with the spear

If you go ancient then the spear becomes the primary weapon both for massed and individual combat. Swords were popular but a spear three or four cubits long is a spear of a warrior. If you go ancient don't forget to measure things in bushels and cubits, it will help.

Swords are for noble warriors, again exceptions remain, they are a good side arm for any veteran spearman in the ancient world, bot note they are primarily spearmen. In Anglo celt fantasy the sword is the mark of an important warrior because it expensive, though the real mark of importance is in owning a mailshirt.

Sword are senior to spear because:
- you sheath a sword and carry it around with you, a spear you set aside
- cost and decoration, the sword hilt and scabbard are often decorated, amybe even with gold or gems,
- swords can be holy, think Excalibur and the broad cruciform shape of a medieval sword. Gloranthan myth uses the shape of the sword to represent death and thus enables the cross to have power against undead in a milieu with no christian content
- swords were named, people tended not to name spears, though axes and maces can be named also
- in some cultures only nobles could wear or wield swords, especially Japan.
- swords are superior duelling weapons having option for point an edge and due to portability. Swords also outmatch spears in open 1-1 combat, though not in ranked battle.

 Asherian Command wrote:

I mean swords are expensive. Thats alot of steel and hard work to make such a complex thing like a sword. Why not a spear? or an Axe? Or just grab a bow and call it a day?

 Asherian Command wrote:

My second question what is the mythology surrounding the Celtics (And Anglo Saxons) and their magic rituals? Any recommended readings?

add norse to that and study all three, then you get a better pricture.

In a nutshell magic was presumed to exist and could be cataclysmic. Death could be broken, but by a hero not a wizard. The worthy clould travel to the land of the dead and return due to their worth and might, though a magician might be needed to enable the trip.
The gods of the north are limited to the same expencations of custom as the people. Guest right is all important, some people cannot be touched, other must be hunted, the wghy and wherefores dictate this and also determine whether magic will work in those circumstances.

As a rule of thumb look to elemental powers of earth and sea with a much lesser emphasis on air and fire.
Read about the myths of the Duada of the Silver Hand, the Green Man, Beowulf, its not unreasoonable to add some Wagner also. Wagner knew his norse myth and added to it, follow in his footsteps.

 Asherian Command wrote:

My third and final question is... How do borderline personalities occur? Is it possible in a fantasy story? I am planning on including it in my story. I read about in psychology classes that I took in class and found out that they were manipulative. Having never experienced this, I would like to know how it feel to be around these people? Would it be scary or would you not notice, until they started to do ill?

They would not be recognised, and modern psychology will not apply as people don't think as we do. To have modern psychosis you need a modern lifestyle in a modern age. People go crazy differently dependent on who they are. It can be argued that certain psychoses cant exist outside our liberal culture, I think Tourettes is included here, we dont beat a Tourettes sufferer until he learns to shut up, earlier peoples and less advanced peoples today would.

Things to look for are physical illnesses and described effects like dementia. In Norse culture unstable people were (very broadly) included into two categories, bear heads and wolf heads. Bear heads get very angry and cant control their temper and is where we get the word berserker from. Wolf heads got cunning and nasty, and to be a wolfhead was not a complement while to be a bearserk was, for a start it made you useful to your people and people got out of your way.
This analogy is crude and poorly accurate but broadly true, psychology wasn't much of a science then and people were very different. Eccentricities or oddities were largely ignored unless the person was dysfunctionally mad and was either beaten back to good sense or written off.

 Asherian Command wrote:
There is always elves and dwarves. The magic is always downplayed for some weird reason. (LOTR, GOT, The lion the witch and the wardrobe).

I think that GoT is sort of the odd exception as far as the downplay of magic... As in the first book magic is a distant memory (or at least is viewed in the same way as ancient druids are viewed today), but as the story progresses, magic is somehow "awakened" and becomes more present. IMO, by the end of the full story arc, magic will be a major force and game changer for those who use it to the best effect.

Alright My First Question is why do fantasy novels or novels that feature weaponry in general that are melee feature Swords as the primary weapon of the main character?...
Why don't characters use axes more?...

I mean swords are expensive. Thats alot of steel and hard work to make such a complex thing like a sword. Why not a spear? or an Axe? Or just grab a bow and call it a day?

Quite often, fantasy stories are modeled after Medieval Europe... Lords, knights, serfs etc. The Sword was much more than simply a melee weapon "preferred" by the gentry and professional fighter (knights and lords), it was a status and power symbol as well. This is because of the exact thing you mention: swords are expensive, and they actually take a lot of schooling to learn to use properly and to great effect. In England, bows were of course more of a normative item, each household was required to have one, and the man (who could be called to war) would be required to know how to use it, etc. Whereas in Medieval France, the nobility saw that as a peasant weapon and preferred the crossbow... If we look at the more famous axe-wielding societies, we still see that the sword is a status symbol, and may or may not be used in combat at all. The Vikings being the chief among these (in my eyes), in that the clan chieftan would often times have one of the only swords in the whole village, and if he did have more than one, it would be gifted to his bodyguards (usually chosen from among the best fighters), and would be passed down from father to son. Which is why we can see quite a few examples of Viking swords from even the earliest days of Viking raids: the sword was simply too expensive for most lords to risk breaking in battle, whereas the metal required for an axe was much less, AND could be wielded to devastating effect on the battlefield.

Within the realm of Fantasy stories, it would seem that Elves prefer bows and/or spears, because they prefer keeping their enemy at a distance, or prefer a more "elegant" manner of fighting, whereas Dwarfs, who are short and stout, and very strong prefer axes and maces because they can do great damage from a single powerful swing.

Again, GoT seems to break away from this trope, at least a bit (but they go wildly off into fantasy land in other ways), because some main characters prefer other weapons (Robert Baratheon's hammer, Martell's spear, etc)



Sorry for the wall of text, but I hope it helps, and would love to provide more information, if needed

But I plan on making magic powerful, but within reason. Like people with training or years of experience can wield it and can do battle with armies but they still can be killed. They can't fight deities.

I have many rules of magic that I started to include. Such as blood cannot kill blood. (Siblings can't kill each other with magic, unless you know there dead). There is only so much energy that is inside before it is depleted, once depleted it leaves no life. Magic is dangerous and magical errors happen all the time. There are certain items that protect those who do not utilize magic from the magic, but even that can be overpowered. You cannot make something out of nothing. So you can't make earth while flying in the air, in order to start fire you need a source of heat, more talented the mage the more ideas they can make, so they are more alchemy based that magically based, using the elements around them and bending them to their will.

And hilariously enough, I hate it when they bring characters back from the dead, I think it destroys a sacrifice. It makes that death meaningless. So once a character dies.... There dead.

Magic is great to have but it needs to be within reason. I mean It will be unleashed and it will be shown, but magic is still potent, but not at all common.

Even though the main character is facing a god.

God's also have to follow the rules of magic etc. I wrote quite a bit about magic before I started on the creatures and the countries.

If you are not already aware you should look at David Eddings Belgariad and Mallorean series. You rules for magic are a lot like his.

You cannot make something from nothing and you cannot cause something to dissapear or to not exist - the universe will not allow it and the caster dies (Think Laws of thermodynamics).

Using magic drains you and heavy use or using one powerful spell or enchantment can cause you to die and the wizard or witch may be so drained they cannot use magic ever again.

You have to be aware of your surroundings and the nature of magic.

One of Eddings more powerful characters - the wizard Belgarath - gets around on his reputation as does his daughter although they cast when needed.

Its either Belgarath or his brother who tell the hero that sometimes, if you want someone dead, its far better to stab or bludgeon them to death rather than use magic.

Magic also makes a 'noise' which other magic users can hear.

I'd also check out Terry Goodkind's "Sword of Truth" series... I've seen people knock on the later books in the series, but the base rules of magic are interesting


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In regards to the usual "evil is evil" and the "Dark Lord is da evilest person evar" thing... Perhaps you could look at setting the hero in a land where the usual "evil religious practices" are the norm, and he/she sees this as normal, and the antagonists come from a land that views his/her way of life as evil?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I'd also check out Terry Goodkind's "Sword of Truth" series... I've seen people knock on the later books in the series, but the base rules of magic are interesting


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In regards to the usual "evil is evil" and the "Dark Lord is da evilest person evar" thing... Perhaps you could look at setting the hero in a land where the usual "evil religious practices" are the norm, and he/she sees this as normal, and the antagonists come from a land that views his/her way of life as evil?

Actually that is what I am doing.

The main villian isn't really a villian. He's only doing what he sees as right. The Hero isn't really a hero either. He does very bad things, and is not a good person.

The Main Villain in this case was a man, who became a god. (And yes That is still being written). I won't talk about how he became the god, just what he did after, before or during his god hood.

The story is more of a search for himself.

But yes thank you all for the ideas.

But primary idea was to re-imagine a new world where the celtic and anglo saxon (With traces of ancient rome) continued into the medevil age. I mean there are still fantasy creatures. Why the helk not.

And the Norse Mythology I have thought about using. Mostly to the eastern regions or isles.

I have a list of gods and creatures that I have written about. Taking me an entire year to set up all the background information of the world and then create the characters in that world.

And on the borderline personality. I know the people there would not know what that is. But in this case it is more for the reader. You don't find out about this certain character and the personality disadvantaged until later on in the story. It will not be balant, but it will be interpreted from their actions and what they do.

If you are not already aware you should look at David Eddings Belgariad and Mallorean series. You rules for magic are a lot like his.

You cannot make something from nothing and you cannot cause something to dissapear or to not exist - the universe will not allow it and the caster dies (Think Laws of thermodynamics).

Using magic drains you and heavy use or using one powerful spell or enchantment can cause you to die and the wizard or witch may be so drained they cannot use magic ever again.

You have to be aware of your surroundings and the nature of magic.

One of Eddings more powerful characters - the wizard Belgarath - gets around on his reputation as does his daughter although they cast when needed.

Its either Belgarath or his brother who tell the hero that sometimes, if you want someone dead, its far better to stab or bludgeon them to death rather than use magic.

Magic also makes a 'noise' which other magic users can hear.

I've never read him. I was following the laws of matter, and laws of thermodynamics. And its an interesting idea.

Added to the massive list of Asherian's To Read list. Which is over three pages long

But I decided quite early on, I liked the way Warcraft and Warhammer did it to a certain capacity. They won't got ridiculously like being able to cast fireballs and call beings of flame to aid them. But the magic is quite potent. You can create constructs but it takes months to build the right things.

In my view magic would be more like a superpowered version of science, hard to understand and takes years of practice. I usually think of moving the elements like Avatar the Last Air Bender, or using tricks like Merlin did in the Arthur Legends. Simple tricks, but able to control the vines and use the elements around them. Its a very druidic idea that I love, but I would separate them into different groups those that use scientific magic, and then the more natural magic. A proper divide mostly. As the Druids in this world called Ör are quite powerful. As the gods in this world exist to a certain extent. They aren't really blatant, but they do exist and they do come in to see how the world is going, some live on the planet, but most stay in their respective places (heaven, Hell, The Void, etc. Still coming up with a way to describe the gods)

add norse to that and study all three, then you get a better pricture.

In a nutshell magic was presumed to exist and could be cataclysmic. Death could be broken, but by a hero not a wizard. The worthy clould travel to the land of the dead and return due to their worth and might, though a magician might be needed to enable the trip.
The gods of the north are limited to the same expencations of custom as the people. Guest right is all important, some people cannot be touched, other must be hunted, the wghy and wherefores dictate this and also determine whether magic will work in those circumstances.

As a rule of thumb look to elemental powers of earth and sea with a much lesser emphasis on air and fire.
Read about the myths of the Duada of the Silver Hand, the Green Man, Beowulf, its not unreasoonable to add some Wagner also. Wagner knew his norse myth and added to it, follow in his footsteps.

Air and fire I agree on, But earth and sea are very important. But there should also be the emphasis on the animals, and life in general, and then there has to be a counter balance to that, which is death, thunder (a subset of fire), blood, etc.

But yeah I've thought about that. Ressurection being the biggest issue to me.

And having read Beowulf, Magic wasn't really that prevalent. Though that may be because I didn't like Beowulf.

If death was to be broken then I feel like that it would raise questions like, why didn't anyone else try that?

The hero in this story will discover magic but only to use as a protection against other magics. As I write the rest of the story I always get questions in my head about certain things. But many of the cliches I try to openly avoid.

And for reference I decided to give the main character a halberd instead. And the main hero who is not the same as the main character, a sword and a shield. Because he is the leader of his house or his family. And a very prominent Lord.

But in this world it's basically the after math of a severe fall out after the roman empire was destroyed. Except rome had progressed to the point of being technologically advanced enough to make full plate mail and armor. The World is basically stuck in a medevil age, just right before gun powder was introduced.

Anyway Thank you everyone for the suggestions keep them coming. And criticism is open. As it is the beginning of the book and it will have a lot of logistical issues.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

squidhills wrote:
I have a suggestion. Read The Black Company novels by Glen Cook. It is a fantasy series that violates most of the cliches you list. It would be worth it for you to take a look at to see how an author can violate tropes and cliches in a fantasy setting, and how good the result can be.

Added to the list

But yes, that would help me tremendously.

To be honest I think you're asking the wrong questions. There are many books that have protagonists in morally grey scenarios, wielding weapons that aren't swords and standing next to someone that can use magic only along strict laws governing it. I think the latter even has a law or trope, Sanderson's Law I want to say.

Tropes and clichés are neither good nor bad. It's how you use them to tell the story that matters. A young unskilled lord gaining knowledge and power and a signature weapon in order to take on a god is still a clichéd story in many ways, but not necessarily a bad one. Clichés are warm and familiar, you can engage your audience very quickly using them. And we like them, that's why they've become so common. What does a complex magic system and a spear do for your characters? How does it challenge them, make them grow and help the reader engage?

Zond wrote:
To be honest I think you're asking the wrong questions. There are many books that have protagonists in morally grey scenarios, wielding weapons that aren't swords and standing next to someone that can use magic only along strict laws governing it. I think the latter even has a law or trope, Sanderson's Law I want to say.

Tropes and clichés are neither good nor bad. It's how you use them to tell the story that matters. A young unskilled lord gaining knowledge and power and a signature weapon in order to take on a god is still a clichéd story in many ways, but not necessarily a bad one. Clichés are warm and familiar, you can engage your audience very quickly using them. And we like them, that's why they've become so common. What does a complex magic system and a spear do for your characters? How does it challenge them, make them grow and help the reader engage?

True. But the weapon isn't really interesting, the thing that can and will defeat the god, is.

But I think I just spoiled that idea. Its apart of it. If you want to know.

Well read this spoiler.



Personally I thought of the ending more of a bitter ending something to make people think about.

But yeah the cliches will stay and I will keep certain ones, and stray away from really bad ones. Mostly Stereotypes and such.

<misunderstood question>

Nothing wrong with a sword. You can vary the design pretty easily from historical examples which will alter the fighting style.

 Orlanth wrote:

- swords were named, people tended not to name spears, though axes and maces can be named also

The Norse also frequently named their spears.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

My second question what is the mythology surrounding the Celtics (And Anglo Saxons) and their magic rituals? Any recommended readings?

add norse to that and study all three, then you get a better pricture.

In a nutshell magic was presumed to exist and could be cataclysmic. Death could be broken, but by a hero not a wizard. The worthy clould travel to the land of the dead and return due to their worth and might, though a magician might be needed to enable the trip.
The gods of the north are limited to the same expencations of custom as the people. Guest right is all important, some people cannot be touched, other must be hunted, the wghy and wherefores dictate this and also determine whether magic will work in those circumstances.

As a rule of thumb look to elemental powers of earth and sea with a much lesser emphasis on air and fire.
Read about the myths of the Duada of the Silver Hand, the Green Man, Beowulf, its not unreasoonable to add some Wagner also. Wagner knew his norse myth and added to it, follow in his footsteps.

In my opinion, Germanic and Celtic mythology have already been done to death. I'd recommend using elements of a different mythology instead. Using a different base would definitely make your work feel 'fresh' and it will make it stand out from the myriad of Germanic-based Tolkienesque High Fantasy stories. I particularly would recommend Slavic, Chinese, Hindu or Persian mythology.
Of course, there is nothing stopping you from combining elements from several different mythologies, in fact, that might even be better.


As a last tip, if you use swords, never have characters wear them on their back. That is horribly unrealistic as you would never be able to draw a sword that way (unless you had really, really long arms).

 purplefood wrote:
Nothing wrong with a sword. You can vary the design pretty easily from historical examples which will alter the fighting style.

Hmm

True. Very true.

Scimitars are a very Arabic weapon and are quite deadly and quick for being a sword.

Sabres a smaller version of a Scimitar.

Xiphos used by the greeks.


But yeah there are tons of swords, but very few main characters wield halberds in close combat.

In my opinion, Germanic and Celtic mythology have already been done to death. I'd recommend using elements of a different mythology instead. Using a different base would definitely make your work feel 'fresh' and it will make it stand out from the myriad of Germanic-based Tolkienesque High Fantasy stories. I particularly would recommend Slavic, Chinese, Hindu or Persian mythology.
Of course, there is nothing stopping you from combining elements from several different mythologies, in fact, that might even be better.

I personally do not like Chinese, Hindu or Persian Mythologies. Very few times do we get a pure Celtic or a Pure Anglo Saxon read. Most writers just mix and take from where ever. I think it would be less interesting. I mean how many people have heard of Revenants, Bauchan, Water Horses, Morgans, Kelpie, Afancs? Very few have, because most only take the popular creatures. I.E. Dragons, Manticores, Hydras, for no heed of where it comes from.

Though from my experience every single type of mythology has been done to death, because they are hundreds of thousands of writers. The most popular actually just being germanic, nordic and chinese. Yes Chinese is quite popular as a theme for fantasy writers.


But thats just my take on it. I personally like writing about knights because thats what I grew up with reading.

As a last tip, if you use swords, never have characters wear them on their back. That is horribly unrealistic as you would never be able to draw a sword that way (unless you had really, really long arms).

Who does that? My characters only ever have it on their belt. Unless your the main character who has to carry his halberd everywhere.

Technically, King Arthur has his roots in Celtic mythology. I'd suggest reading Yeats, his Celtic Twilight is as close to original source as you can get without going into the Cattle Raid of Cooley- which you should also do. That's a 5th century work with peculiar magic and spear wielding heroes.

But to put it in a nutshell- Celtic magic needs the fey. If you want Celtic mythology, it is a faerie tale. That's a hard sell, so you'll likely need some of the nastier types, like Redcaps to get across the vicious counterpoint to Tinkerbell.

As for how to write interesting spear combat- I highly recommend Katabasis, by Joseph Brassery, Cooper Moo, Mark Teppo and Angus Trim. It is a spinoff of their Mongoliad series, which is about a sect of Knights traveling across the steppes to kill Genghis Khan. Most of the many, many authors are accomplished Western martial artists, and so describe scenes that you can actually act out. One of the central characters in Katabasis is a spear wielder, and has several excellent fight scenes. But if you do intend to read the full Mongoliad, do so in order. Katabasis is the 4th in the main stroyline. There are also tons of offshoot novels and novellas, usually by some of the authors.

I'm in the midst of working on a faerie tale myself. Send me a pm, or drop me a line at tepdeck@gmail.com if you ever want to talk fey and the Celts.

 Asherian Command wrote:

As a last tip, if you use swords, never have characters wear them on their back. That is horribly unrealistic as you would never be able to draw a sword that way (unless you had really, really long arms).

Who does that? My characters only ever have it on their belt. Unless your the main character who has to carry his halberd everywhere.

You see it a lot in video games, movies and other popular culture. Having your sword slung over your back looks cool, even if it is extremely unpractical.

I really like the idea of a main character with a halberd though. I have never read something like that before. Halberds are cool.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

As a last tip, if you use swords, never have characters wear them on their back. That is horribly unrealistic as you would never be able to draw a sword that way (unless you had really, really long arms).

Who does that? My characters only ever have it on their belt. Unless your the main character who has to carry his halberd everywhere.

You see it a lot in video games, movies and other popular culture. Having your sword slung over your back looks cool, even if it is extremely unpractical.

I really like the idea of a main character with a halberd though. I have never read something like that before. Halberds are cool.

You can wear a sword on your back and draw it. You can't tie the entire scabbard down, but you can do this. In fact, some swords require them to be carried on the back and not on the hip. Trying to hip-draw a flamberge would be the funniest thing to watch, ever.

Also, you are correct when stating that halberds are cool. They are extra cool.

Make a spin on Mayan/Toltec mythos but use your motiff. They put the Blood back into Blood God!

 Asherian Command wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
Nothing wrong with a sword. You can vary the design pretty easily from historical examples which will alter the fighting style.

Hmm

True. Very true.

Scimitars are a very Arabic weapon and are quite deadly and quick for being a sword.

Sabres a smaller version of a Scimitar.

Xiphos used by the greeks.

The kilij was a saber used by the Turks and IIRC Vlad the Impaler used one to great effect.

squidhills wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

As a last tip, if you use swords, never have characters wear them on their back. That is horribly unrealistic as you would never be able to draw a sword that way (unless you had really, really long arms).

Who does that? My characters only ever have it on their belt. Unless your the main character who has to carry his halberd everywhere.

You see it a lot in video games, movies and other popular culture. Having your sword slung over your back looks cool, even if it is extremely unpractical.

I really like the idea of a main character with a halberd though. I have never read something like that before. Halberds are cool.

You can wear a sword on your back and draw it. You can't tie the entire scabbard down, but you can do this. In fact, some swords require them to be carried on the back and not on the hip. Trying to hip-draw a flamberge would be the funniest thing to watch, ever.

Also, you are correct when stating that halberds are cool. They are extra cool.

He's will be a very interesting one. I was reading a book called War of the Ancients and an Orc by the name Broxigar got this really cool axe. Like it was shaped from wood and it was so powerful that it could cut clean through demons, but it had the look of a tree but in axe form.

But yeah I always see swords, and see that halberds are very underplayed or maybe a voulge or a glaive. But It would be cool to have him utilize a Spontoon, a sub type of a halberd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontoon (Basically a dumb down version of the trident, just has both a sharp pointy end and two sided blade). Any of those would be interesting. I might roll a dice because really they all accomplish the same thing. They are a weapon. And the weapon is not the major part of the character not like the character's armor which is probably going to be an interesting decision.

Though sadly the one thing I am having trouble with is would there be nobles and lords? Or would there just be random villages. I personally lean towards more of the nobles and lords.

And yeah trying to see someone draw a flamberge would be a very interesting feat as those things are freaking huge. Shesh.

he kilij was a saber used by the Turks and IIRC Vlad the Impaler used one to great effect.

Vlad the Impaler had quite a few things running for him. That and the amazing mustache he spotted were the thing of legends. Minus the whole torture thing.

Make a spin on Mayan/Toltec mythos but use your motiff. They put the Blood back into Blood God!

One of the few areas of history I know nothing about is the Mayan's and Toltecs. I never found that history at all interesting.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Alright My First Question is why do fantasy novels or novels that feature weaponry in general that are melee feature Swords as the primary weapon of the main character?

Probably harkens back to the old times where the Sword has traditionally been the weapon and symbol of the nobility and the warrior class. For those of us who love spears () we kind of miss out as traditionally the spear was a peasant weapon, not one a warrior was typically trained in. Spears are also a sort of improvised weapon, as normally one would use a spear for hunting, and then in warfare secondary.

Why don't characters use axes more?

Same reason as a spear. Axes, Bows, and Spears could be used outside of warfare for basic survival and there were many people able to use them. A sword has no real use other than as a weapon of war and so has come to symbolize war itself.

I mean swords are expensive. Thats alot of steel and hard work to make such a complex thing like a sword. Why not a spear? or an Axe? Or just grab a bow and call it a day?

You're right. When fielding a large army, not only were swords to expensive to make, but it also takes a lot of training to be combat effective with a sword. A spear is a thrusting weapon, not to mention it offers one a sense of security as you can keep a foe at a distance. Spears are also highly effective in groups. An ax was sort of a specialist weapon for most of history used to pierce and blugeon armor.

My second question what is the mythology surrounding the Celtics (And Anglo Saxons) and their magic rituals? Any recommended readings?

My only advice here is that you should be wary, as modern Wicca and Druidism has kind of diluted the traditions of those cultures. That said, another thing to be aware of is that these people didn't really write when they followed their traditions. Writing came with Christianity, so many of our documents informing us about the Celts, Norse, and Germans of ancient times come to us from Christian and Roman sources.

Is it possible in a fantasy story?

Game of Thrones has plenty of characters who could be considered to have personality disorders.

I am planning on including it in my story. I read about in psychology classes that I took in class and found out that they were manipulative.

Read up on the 'Dark Triad' personalities; Psychopathy, Narcissism, and Machiavellianism. Namely you seem interested in a Machiavellian personality. Someone who is highly manipulative of others for personal game. You could try watching episodes of Survivor as nearly every season has at least one person who constantly manipulates others to win the game. Yes. Reality TV is good for something

 Iron_Captain wrote:

As a last tip, if you use swords, never have characters wear them on their back. That is horribly unrealistic as you would never be able to draw a sword that way (unless you had really, really long arms).

unless of course, the character has a Flamberge, or a full on Claymore... Those are quite simply, too big to be worn around the hip. They also, historically speaking, had a special sort of "scabbard" in which the wielder didn't draw the sword overhead, he more or less, partially drew it, then swung it around the head/shoulders, sort of in an overhead slashing motion.

Come to think of it, the first battle in Braveheart... with the terrible editing that shows William Wallace draw/redraw his sword a few times is a decent example of this motion that I'm talking about... Regardless, it's a fairly cumbersome move, and a fairly cumbersome weapon.

As much as people love giant swords, large two handed swords were not particularly common weapons. Their primary battle use was to charge spear lines and cut the spears (the large sword being such that it could reach the spears and cut them while the wielder maintained a safe distance). Some were use to cut the legs of horses at times but they were not dueling weapons at all.

EDIT: And weight and length wasn't the only issue. Such weapons were very brittle and shattered easily without very very specific construction.

 LordofHats wrote:
As much as people love giant swords, large two handed swords were not particularly common weapons. Their primary battle use was to charge spear lines and cut the spears (the large sword being such that it could reach the spears and cut them while the wielder maintained a safe distance). Some were use to cut the legs of horses at times but they were not dueling weapons at all.

EDIT: And weight and length wasn't the only issue. Such weapons were very brittle and shattered easily without very very specific construction.

Which is yet more reason why the Landsknecht Mercenaries were so costly for those who payed them. Also, the Flamberge, in a combat construction is very strong. IIRC, it derives much of that strength from the fact that it isn't a straight sword (from the linear perspective, it had the "flame" design to it, and the waves lent extra strength to the cutting surfaces)

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Which is yet more reason why the Landsknecht Mercenaries were so costly for those who payed them. Also, the Flamberge, in a combat construction is very strong. IIRC, it derives much of that strength from the fact that it isn't a straight sword (from the linear perspective, it had the "flame" design to it, and the waves lent extra strength to the cutting surfaces)

Yep, but one thing often missed in history (and for Japanese Swords this is really really true) no matter how strong a sword, if you swing it the wrong way it breaks. Flexible steels weren't really mastered until the 18th century so early steels and irons were quite brittle and prone to breaking. You could mold the sword back together, but once it broke it would never really be the same.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Which is yet more reason why the Landsknecht Mercenaries were so costly for those who payed them. Also, the Flamberge, in a combat construction is very strong. IIRC, it derives much of that strength from the fact that it isn't a straight sword (from the linear perspective, it had the "flame" design to it, and the waves lent extra strength to the cutting surfaces)

Yep, but one thing often missed in history (and for Japanese Swords this is really really true) no matter how strong a sword, if you swing it the wrong way it breaks. Flexible steels weren't really mastered until the 18th century so early steels and irons were quite brittle and prone to breaking. You could mold the sword back together, but once it broke it would never really be the same.

One "plus" side to having a 6 ft. sword was that if you only broke a bit off the tip, you still had a 5 ft sword to fight with

Now you're looking on the bright side