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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Spoiler:
The God is the Ancestor of the Lord, (This is not really a spoiler, the third chapter talks about it) Remember that rule that blood cannot kill blood? The only way to kill a god is through their own blood. Like the Character and his entire family are able to kill the god. There is no prophecy its just happens.
My main reasoning is because Blood is life. Life is blood, without blood there is no life. This will be repeated through out the book. The Main Character will discover the gods weakness and will tell the hero about it. But its up in the air who kills the god, as that would be too much of a spoiler to reveal who kills the god.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
Good example of an alternative to swordsmen is in the Wheel of Time series. The Aiel are pretty serious guys and girls and their own beliefs state they cannot touch a sword - they use bucklers and carry a cluster of short spears to great effect.
I'm not quite sure how practical this would be in real life though and would be interested to hear what someone with martial arts (I hate that phrase) experience thinks of the Aiel weapon choice....it's well outside of my area of not-quite-expertise!
I think Greek infantry (A long time ago) used to do a similar thing. Throw the spear and then engage at a closer range with a short sword. Obviously these guys don't use swords so I suppose they keep their distance.
Inquisitor Gonzo wrote: Good example of an alternative to swordsmen is in the Wheel of Time series. The Aiel are pretty serious guys and girls and their own beliefs state they cannot touch a sword - they use bucklers and carry a cluster of short spears to great effect.
I'm not quite sure how practical this would be in real life though and would be interested to hear what someone with martial arts (I hate that phrase) experience thinks of the Aiel weapon choice....it's well outside of my area of not-quite-expertise!
Reminds me of the hoplites,
having used spears it would be interesting to see it. But it would be only as effective as the warrior using it, so aerobic and aerial movements would help quite a bit, especially when facing someone with a sword or an axe.
But yeah there are quite a few badass soldiers.
Also QUESTION
When you think of revenants, what do you think of?
purplefood wrote: I think Greek infantry (A long time ago) used to do a similar thing. Throw the spear and then engage at a closer range with a short sword. Obviously these guys don't use swords so I suppose they keep their distance.
What?
Wait No. Thats a 300 thing. They lined up and moved towards their enemies in large formations, they don't charge into the line like morons. I.E. 300 got it wrong.
I'm unsure as to how useful acrobatic and aerial movements are in real life. Few people, especially soldiers used to fighting hand to hand, are ever going to be able to jump or flip effectively enough to use them in a fight. More to the point as I understand it footwork is important in a melee fight so leaving the ground is somewhat foolish as you will be off-balance.
Inquisitor Gonzo wrote: Good example of an alternative to swordsmen is in the Wheel of Time series. The Aiel are pretty serious guys and girls and their own beliefs state they cannot touch a sword - they use bucklers and carry a cluster of short spears to great effect.
I'm not quite sure how practical this would be in real life though and would be interested to hear what someone with martial arts (I hate that phrase) experience thinks of the Aiel weapon choice....it's well outside of my area of not-quite-expertise!
Reminds me of the hoplites,
having used spears it would be interesting to see it. But it would be only as effective as the warrior using it, so aerobic and aerial movements would help quite a bit, especially when facing someone with a sword or an axe.
But yeah there are quite a few badass soldiers.
Also QUESTION
When you think of revenants, what do you think of?
purplefood wrote: I think Greek infantry (A long time ago) used to do a similar thing. Throw the spear and then engage at a closer range with a short sword. Obviously these guys don't use swords so I suppose they keep their distance.
What?
Wait
No.
Thats a 300 thing. They lined up and moved towards their enemies in large formations, they don't charge into the line like morons. I.E. 300 got it wrong.
I believe the unit known as the peltast fought in the manner i described. They didn't even get close just threw javelins. They were light infantry as opposed to the heavy infantry hoplites.
I'm unsure as to how useful acrobatic and aerial movements are in real life. Few people, especially soldiers used to fighting hand to hand, are ever going to be able to jump or flip effectively enough to use them in a fight. More to the point as I understand it footwork is important in a melee fight so leaving the ground is somewhat foolish as you will be off-balance.
Inquisitor Gonzo wrote: Good example of an alternative to swordsmen is in the Wheel of Time series. The Aiel are pretty serious guys and girls and their own beliefs state they cannot touch a sword - they use bucklers and carry a cluster of short spears to great effect.
I'm not quite sure how practical this would be in real life though and would be interested to hear what someone with martial arts (I hate that phrase) experience thinks of the Aiel weapon choice....it's well outside of my area of not-quite-expertise!
Reminds me of the hoplites,
having used spears it would be interesting to see it. But it would be only as effective as the warrior using it, so aerobic and aerial movements would help quite a bit, especially when facing someone with a sword or an axe.
But yeah there are quite a few badass soldiers.
Also QUESTION
When you think of revenants, what do you think of?
purplefood wrote: I think Greek infantry (A long time ago) used to do a similar thing. Throw the spear and then engage at a closer range with a short sword. Obviously these guys don't use swords so I suppose they keep their distance.
What?
Wait
No.
Thats a 300 thing. They lined up and moved towards their enemies in large formations, they don't charge into the line like morons. I.E. 300 got it wrong.
I believe the unit known as the peltast fought in the manner i described. They didn't even get close just threw javelins. They were light infantry as opposed to the heavy infantry hoplites.
I don't know martial arts usually use aerobic movements to avoid attacks, sometimes a simple dodge is not enough.
But Revenants aren't just ghosts if I remember correctly
In a massed battle, martial arts would indeed be useless. Its all about the press of men, no room to do all your fancy trickery.
Its more important to keep a square and solid battle stance, focusing on the enemy in front of you.
Martial arts would be the sole arena of an infiltrator or a skirmish unit. Where you'd have space to use such moves. But you'd flee in the face of large numbers.
purplefood wrote: I think Greek infantry (A long time ago) used to do a similar thing. Throw the spear and then engage at a closer range with a short sword. Obviously these guys don't use swords so I suppose they keep their distance.
Nah, that was a Roman tactic. Legionaries would carry 2 Pila(Javelins with a soft iron haft which would bend upon impact, making it difficult to remove from whatever it stuck in and impossible to throw back) to throw before melee was closed.
The Pila would be thrown either just before a charge or as a defensive maneuver before the enemy charged the Century.
A Revenant is pretty much another word for a ghost or something otherwise returned from the dead. They don't actually exist in real life, though, and so they can be whatever you want them to be really.
Grey Templar wrote: In a massed battle, martial arts would indeed be useless. Its all about the press of men, no room to do all your fancy trickery.
Its more important to keep a square and solid battle stance, focusing on the enemy in front of you.
Martial arts would be the sole arena of an infiltrator or a skirmish unit. Where you'd have space to use such moves. But you'd flee in the face of large numbers.
Well duh.
Its a massed battle.
But in a duel the martial arts might help. It might. But yet again the warriors in this world are quite brutal
And also, this story is quite dark at times.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Avatar 720 wrote: A Revenant is pretty much another word for a ghost or something otherwise returned from the dead. They don't actually exist in real life, though, and so they can be whatever you want them to be really.
Yep. Basically. I have written up my own version of a Revenant but its not a ghost. Or really human.
purplefood wrote: I think Greek infantry (A long time ago) used to do a similar thing. Throw the spear and then engage at a closer range with a short sword. Obviously these guys don't use swords so I suppose they keep their distance.
Nah, that was a Roman tactic. Legionaries would carry 2 Pila(Javelins with a soft iron haft which would bend upon impact, making it difficult to remove from whatever it stuck in and impossible to throw back) to throw before melee was closed.
The Pila would be thrown either just before a charge or as a defensive maneuver before the enemy charged the Century.
The Greeks - and Persians, to an extent - also employed javelins, and purple is actually quite right. Peltasts usually carried and several javelins on their person along with a pelte - the wicker shield for which they were named - and usually a sword. Against more heavily armed and armoured enemies they would essentially kite by throwing javelins, and then retreating back, easily capable of outpacing troops like Hoplites simply because they carried so little. Against other skirmishers, they often charged after releasing their javelins, as they had ample enough protection as well as a sword.
Grey Templar wrote: In a massed battle, martial arts would indeed be useless. Its all about the press of men, no room to do all your fancy trickery.
Its more important to keep a square and solid battle stance, focusing on the enemy in front of you.
Martial arts would be the sole arena of an infiltrator or a skirmish unit. Where you'd have space to use such moves. But you'd flee in the face of large numbers.
purplefood wrote: I think Greek infantry (A long time ago) used to do a similar thing. Throw the spear and then engage at a closer range with a short sword. Obviously these guys don't use swords so I suppose they keep their distance.
Nah, that was a Roman tactic. Legionaries would carry 2 Pila(Javelins with a soft iron haft which would bend upon impact, making it difficult to remove from whatever it stuck in and impossible to throw back) to throw before melee was closed.
The Pila would be thrown either just before a charge or as a defensive maneuver before the enemy charged the Century.
Can i just point out i just looked it up. The Peltast was a light infantry skirmishing force which would use javelins, slings, and bows along with a wicker buckler to harass the enemy from a distance. Occasionally they used spears or short swords if they had them.
Also as I understand it revenant is just another word for a ghost. Wiki has it as "A visible ghost or animated corpse." I mean you can put whatever spin on it that you want. It's not like no one has ever reinterpreted things like this before.
Also as I understand it revenant is just another word for a ghost. Wiki has it as "A visible ghost or animated corpse." I mean you can put whatever spin on it that you want. It's not like no one has ever reinterpreted things like this before.
True, but the main reasoning is that Revenants describe it perfectly, a visible ghost that is vengeful and is quite scary.
Also as I understand it revenant is just another word for a ghost. Wiki has it as "A visible ghost or animated corpse." I mean you can put whatever spin on it that you want. It's not like no one has ever reinterpreted things like this before.
True, but the main reasoning is that Revenants describe it perfectly, a visible ghost that is vengeful and is quite scary.
Also as I understand it revenant is just another word for a ghost. Wiki has it as "A visible ghost or animated corpse." I mean you can put whatever spin on it that you want. It's not like no one has ever reinterpreted things like this before.
True, but the main reasoning is that Revenants describe it perfectly, a visible ghost that is vengeful and is quite scary.
So it is a ghost...
I'm glad we cleared that up
Basically, but not in my story. They are energy beings in my world.
purplefood wrote: Would elemental not be a more appropriate moniker? For most people, I hope, revenant is a term for the undead.
Not really, in this case they were made from humans, and I will leave it ambiguous. They call themselves Revenants and what other people call them that too.
I am going to leave it up to debate as there is another creature similar to the Revenant. Ghosts don't really exist in the world, and there is no known way to bring someone back from the dead.
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.
So you never read it, but dismiss it immediately? The popol vuh, is a very interesting read, old myths and history are the bread and butter of good fantasy writer.
Also the Mahabharata is very interesting weaponry and the suikouden (The water margin) has a lot of characters that use different weapons, it is a western thing i think to focus on swords.
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.
So you never read it, but dismiss it immediately? The popol vuh, is a very interesting read, old myths and history are the bread and butter of good fantasy writer.
Also the Mahabharata is very interesting weaponry and the suikouden (The water margin) has a lot of characters that use different weapons, it is a western thing i think to focus on swords.
I am just not attracted to the culture or the mythologies.
I might read it, but currently I have too much on my plate.
If you aren't at least slightly interested at the idea of people having their heart cut out of their chest then frankly I don't what you are interested in...
purplefood wrote: If you aren't at least slightly interested at the idea of people having their heart cut out of their chest then frankly I don't what you are interested in...
Decapatations and using them for head puppets.
But I don't find that interesting, because that happens in lots of other cultures. I think its not as interesting as putting people into wooden effigy and burning them alive.
Just don't have any giant warhammers or giant double bitted fantasy battleaxes. Those bug me soooo much.
Oh, and the main character in the Stormlight Archive uses a spear.
Depending on how much armor most people in your world use, maybe a nice mace or pick? Those were far more effective against plate armored foes than swords.
In the late period, armor had advanced to the point where swords were basically useless against it.
So thus the prevalence for Knights and peasants alike to carry weapons that could penetrate armor. Or alternatively immobilize the knight long enough to slide a knife into the gaps.
Maces could break bones just by impact. Halberds and hammers could actually penetrate armor. Same with Crossbows.
Swords were status symbols and weapons for cutting down unarmored opponents. Not for killing a heavily armored opponent. Only very large two handed swords could defeat armor, and because of the weight and force not because the armor would be penetrated.
I always liked the idea of a fantasy world where magic existed, but worked in a way where it gave logistical benefits but had few to zero actual combat applications - IE you could transport food and supplies across vast distances or in huge quantities using magic - and maybe communicate. But all the fighting still had to be done using muscle power.
Another thing to consider is that in combat (today as well as way back when) far more people are maimed, injured, or incapacitated than killed. Defeating an enemy isn't strictly about killing him.
LordofHats wrote: Another thing to consider is that in combat (today as well as way back when) far more people are maimed, injured, or incapacitated than killed. Defeating an enemy isn't strictly about killing him.
Yeah, stuff like disease and starvation aside - most battles were a matter of maneuver. Armies would poke and prod at each other until one side broke, and that was when the majority of deaths were caused, by riding down the broken enemy.
Geography is another commonly ignored aspect of fantasy warfare, so you might want to consider that too. And I don't mean jungles and deserts. I mean is there a swamp in the area, thick rough woods, a hill to hide behind? Is an army marching in a specific direction just cause or does the terrain favor them? Are they attempting to force a conflict in a place where they know they can win?
Most fiction ignores these finer details of strategy and operations.
LordofHats wrote: Geography is another commonly ignored aspect of fantasy warfare, so you might want to consider that too. And I don't mean jungles and deserts. I mean is there a swamp in the area, thick rough woods, a hill to hide behind? Is an army marching in a specific direction just cause or does the terrain favor them? Are they attempting to force a conflict in a place where they know they can win?
Most fiction ignores these finer details of strategy and operations.
Or perhaps even more frustratingly has the protagonist use terrain as a simple trap, that the enemy just blunders in to. It's meant to make the protagonist look like a great general, but mostly it just makes it looks like he won because everyone else was really stupid.
I agree that supply is another thing that I think is underwritten. Sometimes you get a raid on an enemy wagon train, but the actual importance of the train is abstracted, its just used as the justification to have a small battle as you build up to the big fight. But having supply actually play a major role in the campaign doesn't seem to happen very often at all. I guess to some extent we're mostly talking about a fantasy tech base where most supplies where taken from locals while on the march, but the armies in these stories are often vast, and couldn't be fed just from what is taken from the locals. A story in which time pressure is added as supplies are dwindling rapidly, or in which a hero heads for the hills and avoids open battle until the enemy's supply train runs dry could work quite well, I think.
LordofHats wrote: Another thing to consider is that in combat (today as well as way back when) far more people are maimed, injured, or incapacitated than killed. Defeating an enemy isn't strictly about killing him.
Unless you know the main enemy is a skeleton or a being of energy.
LordofHats wrote: Geography is another commonly ignored aspect of fantasy warfare, so you might want to consider that too. And I don't mean jungles and deserts. I mean is there a swamp in the area, thick rough woods, a hill to hide behind? Is an army marching in a specific direction just cause or does the terrain favor them? Are they attempting to force a conflict in a place where they know they can win?
Most fiction ignores these finer details of strategy and operations.
Or perhaps even more frustratingly has the protagonist use terrain as a simple trap, that the enemy just blunders in to. It's meant to make the protagonist look like a great general, but mostly it just makes it looks like he won because everyone else was really stupid.
I agree that supply is another thing that I think is underwritten. Sometimes you get a raid on an enemy wagon train, but the actual importance of the train is abstracted, its just used as the justification to have a small battle as you build up to the big fight. But having supply actually play a major role in the campaign doesn't seem to happen very often at all. I guess to some extent we're mostly talking about a fantasy tech base where most supplies where taken from locals while on the march, but the armies in these stories are often vast, and couldn't be fed just from what is taken from the locals. A story in which time pressure is added as supplies are dwindling rapidly, or in which a hero heads for the hills and avoids open battle until the enemy's supply train runs dry could work quite well, I think.
Currently thinking about that as well. As one thing that I think most writers forget about is that you need a steady amount of supplies to move, without it you are kind of screwed. But that only happens if your army is not the undead or beings unique to that idea.
In the late period, armor had advanced to the point where swords were basically useless against it.
So thus the prevalence for Knights and peasants alike to carry weapons that could penetrate armor. Or alternatively immobilize the knight long enough to slide a knife into the gaps.
Maces could break bones just by impact. Halberds and hammers could actually penetrate armor. Same with Crossbows.
Swords were status symbols and weapons for cutting down unarmored opponents. Not for killing a heavily armored opponent. Only very large two handed swords could defeat armor, and because of the weight and force not because the armor would be penetrated.
I think that was right at the beginning of the gunpowder period.
And the heyday of armor was right before gunpowder became an immensely practical weapon. Once guns became practical and standing armies became a thing armored knights quickly went away as a force on the battlefield.
Then guns began to be more common(slowly replacing the Crossbow) while the bulk of soldiers used Pikes, and once Bayonets were invented the Pikes became obsolete. This is when an army was mostly pike formations which protected your gunners/crossbowmen while being backed up by artillery. Cavalry were used as a flanking force to tie up enemy cavalry and prevent them from flanking you.
So if you are going for early renaissance, you'll have massed battles of Pikemen protecting ranks of gunners/crossbowmen.
You'll have units of Swordsmen who are tasked with breaking pike lines with massive twohanded swords(Forlorn Hope)
Not sure if that is what you were going for. Its not typical fantasy fodder, but I think it could definitely work.
And the heyday of armor was right before gunpowder became an immensely practical weapon. Once guns became practical and standing armies became a thing armored knights quickly went away as a force on the battlefield.
Then guns began to be more common(slowly replacing the Crossbow) while the bulk of soldiers used Pikes, and once Bayonets were invented the Pikes became obsolete. This is when an army was mostly pike formations which protected your gunners/crossbowmen while being backed up by artillery. Cavalry were used as a flanking force to tie up enemy cavalry and prevent them from flanking you.
So if you are going for early renaissance, you'll have massed battles of Pikemen protecting ranks of gunners/crossbowmen.
You'll have units of Swordsmen who are tasked with breaking pike lines with massive twohanded swords(Forlorn Hope)
Not sure if that is what you were going for. Its not typical fantasy fodder, but I think it could definitely work.
I am going for more amassed battle of different types of weapons being used.
As the world is still recovering after the destruction of an entire empire. But the technology didn't go backwards it went forwards in many areas just not in a lot of major areas.
But my major thing is that it is still a fantasy setting so it will be mysterious and the peoples in will be different.
AS I continue to write up my book. (First chapter currently is being written, with the other ones being put into prompt form)
I wish I had concept artists to help me flesh it out ;.;
Hey everyone if your interested in criticizing, you can help me write my book, just message me if your interested as I am currently going through the first chapter and need people to help me flesh it out.
Check first post for different questions!
I am currently working on several chapters and getting them together. I have the flow chart down.
Asherian Command wrote: First question is would a noble family be called a house or a family?
This is something where you have leeway I think. Clan. House. Family. Etc. Pick one you like or whatever better suits the culture you're creating. I think your time would be better spent defining the structure, expectations, and norms of the family than what the family is called. Create a baseline (think Ultramarines with their super adherence to the Codex Astartes) and use that as a social standard, then deviate from it for each new family. Deviation for deviation's sake is as with Custom Chapters, silly, so think of why a family would behave differently from another. This will help you in defining each family as well as how those families will interact with one another.
George Martin did a spectacular job in this category I think and is a great standard on which to study. Personally, I'd suggest writing your story first and working out the world building afterwards. Its very easy and a pit trap for many writers to become trapped in world building so much they never actually write their story. These finer details can be flexible and worked out at a later time (my advice). Get a framework together for yourself and fluff it out as you go.
Would it be abnormal for women to serve in the military?
Depends. There are many famous women in our history with military service. Joan of Arc. Matilda of Tuscany. Boudica. Artemisia. Fu Hao was both the wife of a Chinese King and his greatest general (supposedly she never lost a battle).
You'll want to work on the culture of your world. Is it Matriarchal or Patriarchal? Is lineage traced through the mother or the father? What are the social expectations of men and women and what are their family responsibilities? Historically, the more a society depended on Agriculture, the less egalitarian the sexes were but not necessarily. Ancient China was a quasi-Matriarchy despite depending heavily of rice agriculture.
What is the amount of characters in a single POV? Like 2 or 3?
A single POV is 1. The thing to keep in mind about multiple POV is what kind of story are you telling. Is it one person's journey? A group? Is the focus of the narrative really on one person but numerous others are also involved and have their own tales that tie in?
EDIT: You'll also want to consider the reliability of your narrator. Is the narrator(s) completely honest with accurate information, or are they biased? Will they lie to the reader?
How long should my first chapter be? (20 pages or 30? I am almost at 25 pages in my notebook)
This is completely up to you. There's no standard. I tend to end a chapter when the scene at hand is finished or when I feel like I've gone long enough and the reader can have a break to put the book down.
Should I post some of the ideas I've come up with here? Or keep it private and to a select few?
As I've directed others, check out Writing Forums.org as its a great site. There's nothing wrong with brainstorming with others as it helps many people with writing. Just keep in mind never post the whole of a work you want to get published on the net. Publishers have this thing called 'First Publishing' Rights and that means they don't want something they're publishing to have been previously released. A few chapters to get mass feedback (especially on the early chapters as these are key) is good, but don't put too much out there or you can create a barrier to professional publishing.
Asherian Command wrote: First question is would a noble family be called a house or a family?
This is something where you have leeway I think. Clan. House. Family. Etc. Pick one you like or whatever better suits the culture you're creating. I think your time would be better spent defining the structure, expectations, and norms of the family than what the family is called. Create a baseline (think Ultramarines with their super adherence to the Codex Astartes) and use that as a social standard, then deviate from it for each new family. Deviation for deviation's sake is as with Custom Chapters, silly, so think of why a family would behave differently from another. This will help you in defining each family as well as how those families will interact with one another.
George Martin did a spectacular job in this category I think and is a great standard on which to study. Personally, I'd suggest writing your story first and working out the world building afterwards. Its very easy and a pit trap for many writers to become trapped in world building so much they never actually write their story. These finer details can be flexible and worked out at a later time (my advice). Get a framework together for yourself and fluff it out as you go.
Which I am studying. I just need to look at the books again, learn from them :/
The Families aren't a massive part of the world. Not like Martin's.
But yes the story comes first. I know where its going to end, I know what the primary main character is going to do, and what he is going to have to go through. Its the side characters that also have importance that I will add to the story.
Would it be abnormal for women to serve in the military?
Depends. There are many famous women in our history with military service. Joan of Arc. Matilda of Tuscany. Boudica. Artemisia. Fu Hao was both the wife of a Chinese King and his greatest general (supposedly she never lost a battle).
You'll want to work on the culture of your world. Is it Matriarchal or Patriarchal? Is lineage traced through the mother or the father? What are the social expectations of men and women and what are their family responsibilities? Historically, the more a society depended on Agriculture, the less egalitarian the sexes were but not necessarily. Ancient China was a quasi-Matriarchy despite depending heavily of rice agriculture.
Hmm. Interesting. I mean the Litor Family - The Main Group - Has females leading it was because their founder was a woman. But there is still sexism its not solved. It might happen but it might not.
What is the amount of characters in a single POV? Like 2 or 3?
A single POV is 1. The thing to keep in mind about multiple POV is what kind of story are you telling. Is it one person's journey? A group? Is the focus of the narrative really on one person but numerous others are also involved and have their own tales that tie in?
Yes I know that, but how many characters should be per a POV not the POV, but the other characters? Should they be alone or should they be among others all the time?
How long should my first chapter be? (20 pages or 30? I am almost at 25 pages in my notebook)
This is completely up to you. There's no standard. I tend to end a chapter when the scene at hand is finished or when I feel like I've gone long enough and the reader can have a break to put the book down.
Ah.
Should I post some of the ideas I've come up with here? Or keep it private and to a select few?
As I've directed others, check out Writing Forums.org as its a great site. There's nothing wrong with brainstorming with others as it helps many people with writing. Just keep in mind never post the whole of a work you want to get published on the net. Publishers have this thing called 'First Publishing' Rights and that means they don't want something they're publishing to have been previously released. A few chapters to get mass feedback (especially on the early chapters as these are key) is good, but don't put too much out there or you can create a barrier to professional publishing.
So like the first few chapters and then over time you slowly build up a group of people who you trust that you share the next chapters.
I will not share the last chapters, or any pivotal chapters. As my plan is to have those be surprises.
And yes I've been to the writing forums, people are quite helpful, and some are not.
I have a ton of work that I have not released alot of it I keep to myself and share with only people close to me. Like who will die, what happens in the end, and major plot points that could ruin the whole story.
Asherian Command wrote: But there is still sexism its not solved. It might happen but it might not.
Keep in mind that however you set it up, if there's a really good reason, people break tradition and convention. Matilda of Tuscany lived in a time when women were probably most maligned by the church, but she was such an ardent defender of the Italian States against the Holy Roman Empire, and so successful in this role, she is one of the few women interned in the Vatican in St. Peter's Basilica, which is typically somewhere you only get buried for being Pope.
If someone, man or women, low born or high born, is really really good at what they do, people tend to move aside and let them do it. Not that they won't make enemies, but social convention has this way of bending to pragmatism in desperate times (and then snapping back like a rubber band afterwards).
Yes I know that, but how many characters should be per a POV not the POV, but the other characters? Should they be alone or should they be among others all the time?
Oooooh. Sorry. Misunderstood.
This will vary by writer, style and skill. Handling a large number of characters taking action in one scene can be really really hard. I tend to find my own work becoming unwieldy when more than six or so characters are in center focus. Conversations become muddles, action scenes get bardlged. You'll likely have a different threshold than me and you'll need to experiment to find it. Some writers are just better at juggling loads and loads of characters than others.
Asherian Command wrote: But there is still sexism its not solved. It might happen but it might not.
Keep in mind that however you set it up, if there's a really good reason, people break tradition and convention. Matilda of Tuscany lived in a time when women were probably most maligned by the church, but she was such an ardent defender of the Italian States against the Holy Roman Empire, and so successful in this role, she is one of the few women interned in the Vatican in St. Peter's Basilica, which is typically somewhere you only get buried for being Pope.
If someone, man or women, low born or high born, is really really good at what they do, people tend to move aside and let them do it. Not that they won't make enemies, but social convention has this way of bending to pragmatism in desperate times (and then snapping back like a rubber band afterwards).
Yes I know that, but how many characters should be per a POV not the POV, but the other characters? Should they be alone or should they be among others all the time?
Oooooh. Sorry. Misunderstood.
This will vary by writer, style and skill. Handling a large number of characters taking action in one scene can be really really hard. I tend to find my own work becoming unwieldy when more than six or so characters are in center focus. Conversations become muddles, action scenes get bardlged. You'll likely have a different threshold than me and you'll need to experiment to find it. Some writers are just better at juggling loads and loads of characters than others.
Agreed with everything.
I am still working my way through mastering Different POVs. I can do single POV with a character and multiple others and it comes out pretty well. But once I start hitting around 8 characters it is chaotic.
And I have a couple female characters, (Like half the cast is female. Three are warriors, the rest are not, the others being more based on the mind, than using their weapons)
MWHistorian wrote: A book I'd highly recommend is "How to Write a Damn Good Novel." It will answer many of your questions, even ones you didn't know to ask."
Generally, with a family or house you'll be looking at something like the factions in Game of Thrones. basically an extended family, but still close enough to have definite family ties(you can figure out how everyone is related to everyone else exactly) You can go either way, although House implies more individuals and may include unrelated persons who are bound in service while Family implies relation either by blood or marriage.
With a Clan, you are at a much larger group scale. Everyone is descended from a specific person or small group, but not everyone can say for sure exactly how. The tribal leaders will have a direct line most likely, but everyone else will be of unknown descent quality. Some people may not even be related, they've married or been adopted in.
As far as the involvement of women, a society with a strong emphasis on martial prowess could go either way. You could easily have it similar to many real life societies where, although women generally kept to the domestic sphere because of starting families, that was no real barrier. If you were a good fighter nobody cared what was between your legs. Just don't go out of the way of the story to show it. Have a good justification for it in the setting and use it to enhance the story.
And the heyday of armor was right before gunpowder became an immensely practical weapon. Once guns became practical and standing armies became a thing armored knights quickly went away as a force on the battlefield.
Then guns began to be more common(slowly replacing the Crossbow) while the bulk of soldiers used Pikes, and once Bayonets were invented the Pikes became obsolete. This is when an army was mostly pike formations which protected your gunners/crossbowmen while being backed up by artillery. Cavalry were used as a flanking force to tie up enemy cavalry and prevent them from flanking you.
So if you are going for early renaissance, you'll have massed battles of Pikemen protecting ranks of gunners/crossbowmen.
You'll have units of Swordsmen who are tasked with breaking pike lines with massive twohanded swords(Forlorn Hope)
Not sure if that is what you were going for. Its not typical fantasy fodder, but I think it could definitely work.
I am going for more amassed battle of different types of weapons being used.
As the world is still recovering after the destruction of an entire empire. But the technology didn't go backwards it went forwards in many areas just not in a lot of major areas.
But my major thing is that it is still a fantasy setting so it will be mysterious and the peoples in will be different.
AS I continue to write up my book. (First chapter currently is being written, with the other ones being put into prompt form)
I wish I had concept artists to help me flesh it out ;.;
If that is the case, the most realistic scenario is the following. Going with vague generalities of course.
Current major factions would be some of the major noble houses who survived whatever destroyed the empire, possibly a remnant of the Empire itself(or multiples) still holding on to the shattered tatters of what it once was, along with some newer factions which arose out of the aftermath.
So you'd have 2-5 major noble houses who emerged relatively unscathed from the aftermath and currently stand alone. They may have been vassals of the Empire who now find themselves free of foreign rule. Some may have been independent all along.
A remnant of the Empire itself, likely only holding a small amount of territory, ruled by some obscure member of the former Imperial royal line. Still loudly proclaiming that its ruler is the rightful Emperor and all others should bow down. You could even have several factions like this, each saying they are the true Emperor.
Then you'll have some new factions. Formed by former Generals in the Empire's military who have set themselves up as kings in lands they seized after the collapse. Alternatively they may just be brigands, merchants, or mercenaries who fancy setting up their own little kingdoms just because they can.
You will also have a bunch of ex-soldiers from both sides roaming about as bandits and pirates just preying on anyone they come across.
Maybe another previously minor independent power has moved into the power vacuum created and seized a bunch of land it previously couldn't have hoped to take.
What exactly caused the collapse of this Empire BTW? With a little more info we could have some more specific ideas.
Maybe, I'm late to the party, but this topic really interests me primarily because I am working on my story as well.
Asherian Command wrote: So I need some help! And I will ask some questions. Also I feel like it should be talked about , because lets face it, there are tons of cliches in Fantasy. Like how there is always a dark lord, how its usually black and white. There is always elves and dwarves. The magic is always downplayed for some weird reason. (LOTR, GOT, The lion the witch and the wardrobe).
You need to read or become aware of more fantasy. The generic dark lord or single enemy does exist in nearly every setting, but magic isn't downplayed in every world. Not by longshot. In fact, my biggest criticism of some fantasy settings is that they have excess and overly common magic, which effectively renders it mundane. By limiting it in the LoTR, ASoIaF, and The Chronicles of Narnia, each respective author has made the use of magic, well, magical. It's just something to consider. Do you want your magic to be special or commonplace? It's just flavoring.
Spoiler:
(These Have already been answered) 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?
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?
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?
My second question what is the mythology surrounding the Celtics (And Anglo Saxons) and their magic rituals? Any recommended readings?
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?
Currently my book is in early drafting and is basically my homage to the stories I used to read as a child, like the old king arthur legends, the tales of Saint George, The Crusades, and basically what my childhood reading was like. ( i read a ton of medieval literature as a kid, and noticed a lot of cliches as the years went on).
But yep yeah for creative writing!
Newest Questions.
First question is would a noble family be called a house or a family? Would it be abnormal for women to serve in the military?
I think the term House is more appropriate and it seems to be the standard across multiple speculative fiction settings. Whether or not it is abnormal for women to serve in the military is entirely dependent on how you want to build your world. If you're depicting realistic humans, than women would play a smaller role and be more limited. However, you're perfectly free to depict the women as just as capable, or even more capable, than men. The gender roles of your respective societies are free for you to create. Personally, I think female characters are vital to a realistic story. Even the society is patriarchal and men dominate it, women still exist and many decisions men make are concerning women.
What is the amount of characters in a single POV? Like 2 or 3?
How long should the character be trained? How would time move in a single POV?
So if the main villain of the story, are undead creatures would pikes not serve any use?
How long should my first chapter be? (20 pages or 30? I am almost at 25 pages in my notebook)
How should I start it? Should I start it like GOT? Showing the main villian or just starting it with the main character and at the end of the chapter introduce the villain?
Start it in a way that captures the reader's attention and keeps them turning the pages. It isn't necessary to reveal the protagonist and antagonist immediately. It isn't necessary for the first character introduced to survive the first few pages. All that matters is drawing the reader in at that point and keeping them reading.
Should I post some of the ideas I've come up with here? Or keep it private and to a select few?
First question is would a noble family be called a house or a family? Would it be abnormal for women to serve in the military?
House, Family, Clan. Anything really, it your world. There's really no convention here, it's the dynamic and structure that is more important than the name.
It depends entirely on the setting. This is fantasy, so you can do whatever you like. The way I see it, you could easily have a setting where people would do what they were good at. So if you have a woman that is better than all the lads with a sword then she probably becomes a warrior equal to any man in standing (or you could work this into the character, have her better than some but not recognised and therefore a but bitter)
What is the amount of characters in a single POV? Like 2 or 3?
This, as others have said, is entirely up to you. I'm currently working on a project that will have 3-4 'main' POVs, and then have chapters from other viewpoints if necessary. One thing that is fun to play with narratorial instability and reliability, Don't have every character knowing everything, or having the same view. If there's a contrast in how an event is portrayed by two characters, it forces the reader to consider why that is. On the other hand, if you present just one viewpoint you can create a very biased unique 'voice' for a character. Here's a couple of examples from my own writing on Dakka that demonstrate this :
How long should the character be trained? How would time move in a single POV?
It depends again on you. Some novels will skip dozens of years and then fill in a backstory as you go along, some will spend chapter after chapter presenting the growth of a character through childhood/training/experience ect. It depends onwhat you want to achieve; do you want to build up a character and have a changing nature throughout the novel, or start with a fully formed character that will then change given events within the plot? I tend to lean towards the latter, but it's preference really).
So if the main villain of the story, are undead creatures would pikes not serve any use?
I can't see why they wouldn't; they still make a fearsome defensive formation even if the enemy are a bunch of zombies/ other undead loonies. Of course, if you have incorporeal/ethereal undead then they're no good, but neither is anything else.
How long should my first chapter be? (20 pages or 30? I am almost at 25 pages in my notebook)
How should I start it? Should I start it like GOT? Showing the main villian or just starting it with the main character and at the end of the chapter introduce the villain?
The first chapter should be about drawing people in. Some do this by creating a character, some by having a massive battle, some by jumping straight in to a setting to provoke questions. Personally, I don't like introducing villains until a bit later on; I like to create a character and only once they're formed give them a counterpoint. But this is all preference.
My only advice for Chapter length is not to obsess over it. Take the time and length you need for each scene; whether that's 1000 words or 5000, telling the story is the most important bit. I'd advise against changing POV within a chapter unless you have a good reason to.
Should I post some of the ideas I've come up with here? Or keep it private and to a select few?
Posting bits and pieces should be fine, but don't go giving the whole thing to just anyone. Feedback is an important part of this process though, and forums are often the best way to get this (with the added bonus that your audience don't know you so that won't factor in their opinion).
I'd be happy to give you feedback on anything if you post it on here or PM me.
Grey Templar wrote: Generally, with a family or house you'll be looking at something like the factions in Game of Thrones. basically an extended family, but still close enough to have definite family ties(you can figure out how everyone is related to everyone else exactly) You can go either way, although House implies more individuals and may include unrelated persons who are bound in service while Family implies relation either by blood or marriage.
With a Clan, you are at a much larger group scale. Everyone is descended from a specific person or small group, but not everyone can say for sure exactly how. The tribal leaders will have a direct line most likely, but everyone else will be of unknown descent quality. Some people may not even be related, they've married or been adopted in.
As far as the involvement of women, a society with a strong emphasis on martial prowess could go either way. You could easily have it similar to many real life societies where, although women generally kept to the domestic sphere because of starting families, that was no real barrier. If you were a good fighter nobody cared what was between your legs. Just don't go out of the way of the story to show it. Have a good justification for it in the setting and use it to enhance the story.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
If that is the case, the most realistic scenario is the following. Going with vague generalities of course.
Current major factions would be some of the major noble houses who survived whatever destroyed the empire, possibly a remnant of the Empire itself(or multiples) still holding on to the shattered tatters of what it once was, along with some newer factions which arose out of the aftermath.
So you'd have 2-5 major noble houses who emerged relatively unscathed from the aftermath and currently stand alone. They may have been vassals of the Empire who now find themselves free of foreign rule. Some may have been independent all along.
A remnant of the Empire itself, likely only holding a small amount of territory, ruled by some obscure member of the former Imperial royal line. Still loudly proclaiming that its ruler is the rightful Emperor and all others should bow down. You could even have several factions like this, each saying they are the true Emperor.
Then you'll have some new factions. Formed by former Generals in the Empire's military who have set themselves up as kings in lands they seized after the collapse. Alternatively they may just be brigands, merchants, or mercenaries who fancy setting up their own little kingdoms just because they can.
You will also have a bunch of ex-soldiers from both sides roaming about as bandits and pirates just preying on anyone they come across.
Maybe another previously minor independent power has moved into the power vacuum created and seized a bunch of land it previously couldn't have hoped to take.
What exactly caused the collapse of this Empire BTW? With a little more info we could have some more specific ideas.
Currently I have that setup as a secret. No one knows what destroyed the empire. AS it has been several centuries since it's collapse. Infact they have no idea how long ago it was since the empire's fall. No one fully knows what destroyed the empire. Lets just say it involved a certain fellow and his desire for power.
I planned on making it a house as it would have access to man at arms and hold some political power.
I made it so that clans designate other groups and other cultures.
As Meroth (The Kingdom) would be more dark ages like.
You need to read or become aware of more fantasy. The generic dark lord or single enemy does exist in nearly every setting, but magic isn't downplayed in every world. Not by longshot. In fact, my biggest criticism of some fantasy settings is that they have excess and overly common magic, which effectively renders it mundane. By limiting it in the LoTR, ASoIaF, and The Chronicles of Narnia, each respective author has made the use of magic, well, magical. It's just something to consider. Do you want your magic to be special or commonplace? It's just flavoring.
I made it so that magic is extremely rare. Think of psychic abilities in certain shows or precogs. In this setting there are very few who actually do use magic, most that do practice it, use rune magic which is just drawing symbols on the ground. I've left it a mystery as to why there are so few people who utilize magic. Magic is powerful and terrifying. There is a kingdom of mages called Drenden. But they are rarely involved until halfway through the book. As Magic has all of sudden made a return. Where things that used to just be said were magic became magical. As magic was prevalent during the empire's reign.
I think the term House is more appropriate and it seems to be the standard across multiple speculative fiction settings. Whether or not it is abnormal for women to serve in the military is entirely dependent on how you want to build your world. If you're depicting realistic humans, than women would play a smaller role and be more limited. However, you're perfectly free to depict the women as just as capable, or even more capable, than men. The gender roles of your respective societies are free for you to create. Personally, I think female characters are vital to a realistic story. Even the society is patriarchal and men dominate it, women still exist and many decisions men make are concerning women.
So having some characters break the norms would be an interesting concept. And show characters who do not break the norms and follow them.
House, Family, Clan. Anything really, it your world. There's really no convention here, it's the dynamic and structure that is more important than the name.
It depends entirely on the setting. This is fantasy, so you can do whatever you like. The way I see it, you could easily have a setting where people would do what they were good at. So if you have a woman that is better than all the lads with a sword then she probably becomes a warrior equal to any man in standing (or you could work this into the character, have her better than some but not recognised and therefore a but bitter)
Done one of the characters is like that. She is quite bitter.
This, as others have said, is entirely up to you. I'm currently working on a project that will have 3-4 'main' POVs, and then have chapters from other viewpoints if necessary. One thing that is fun to play with narratorial instability and reliability, Don't have every character knowing everything, or having the same view. If there's a contrast in how an event is portrayed by two characters, it forces the reader to consider why that is. On the other hand, if you present just one viewpoint you can create a very biased unique 'voice' for a character. Here's a couple of examples from my own writing on Dakka that demonstrate this :
It depends again on you. Some novels will skip dozens of years and then fill in a backstory as you go along, some will spend chapter after chapter presenting the growth of a character through childhood/training/experience ect. It depends onwhat you want to achieve; do you want to build up a character and have a changing nature throughout the novel, or start with a fully formed character that will then change given events within the plot? I tend to lean towards the latter, but it's preference really).
Oh. Okay. I didn't know I had the power to say a year later or so. Because the training isn't really that important.
I can't see why they wouldn't; they still make a fearsome defensive formation even if the enemy are a bunch of zombies/ other undead loonies. Of course, if you have incorporeal/ethereal undead then they're no good, but neither is anything else.
True. I might need to explain how to kill them overtime as one of the Main Characters managed to kill one. He never goes into details about it.
The first chapter should be about drawing people in. Some do this by creating a character, some by having a massive battle, some by jumping straight in to a setting to provoke questions. Personally, I don't like introducing villains until a bit later on; I like to create a character and only once they're formed give them a counterpoint. But this is all preference.
My only advice for Chapter length is not to obsess over it. Take the time and length you need for each scene; whether that's 1000 words or 5000, telling the story is the most important bit. I'd advise against changing POV within a chapter unless you have a good reason to.
The first chapter I've found is drawing a lot of tension and teaching you about the characters and how they interact in it. It shows the main villian in the first few pages. But never gives his name nor talks about what it truly was.
Posting bits and pieces should be fine, but don't go giving the whole thing to just anyone. Feedback is an important part of this process though, and forums are often the best way to get this (with the added bonus that your audience don't know you so that won't factor in their opinion).
I'd be happy to give you feedback on anything if you post it on here or PM me.
Agreed. I have added quite a bit to it. And I am never truly satisfied with my work.
I'd point out that, I don't think the issue in some modern fantasy is that there's too much magic. Writers create, cool as they are, systems and categories and define how magic works, at which point it stops being magic is is more just crazy super science. I feel magic is more importantly dependent on mystery than it is on rarity. Nothing wrong with this approach really, but Arthur C Clarke's famous words I think can go the other direction; Any sufficiently explained magic is indistinguishable from science.
LordofHats wrote: I'd point out that, I don't think the issue in some modern fantasy is that there's too much magic. Writers create, cool as they are, systems and categories and define how magic works, at which point it stops being magic is is more just crazy super science. I feel magic is more importantly dependent on mystery than it is on rarity. Nothing wrong with this approach really, but Arthur C Clarke's famous words I think can go the other direction; Any sufficiently explained magic is indistinguishable from science.
Hmm. So I should I just make it more mysterious? Because the magic will never be talked about how it is created and used, but it will be talked about how to stop it from working. And there won't be any characters that wield magic (From the main cast)
This, as others have said, is entirely up to you. I'm currently working on a project that will have 3-4 'main' POVs, and then have chapters from other viewpoints if necessary. One thing that is fun to play with narratorial instability and reliability, Don't have every character knowing everything, or having the same view. If there's a contrast in how an event is portrayed by two characters, it forces the reader to consider why that is. On the other hand, if you present just one viewpoint you can create a very biased unique 'voice' for a character. Here's a couple of examples from my own writing on Dakka that demonstrate this :
Oh, sorry, I thought that was what you meant by 'how many characters in a single POV'. If you could clarify what you meant, I'll try and answer the right question
This, as others have said, is entirely up to you. I'm currently working on a project that will have 3-4 'main' POVs, and then have chapters from other viewpoints if necessary. One thing that is fun to play with narratorial instability and reliability, Don't have every character knowing everything, or having the same view. If there's a contrast in how an event is portrayed by two characters, it forces the reader to consider why that is. On the other hand, if you present just one viewpoint you can create a very biased unique 'voice' for a character. Here's a couple of examples from my own writing on Dakka that demonstrate this :
Oh, sorry, I thought that was what you meant by 'how many characters in a single POV'. If you could clarify what you meant, I'll try and answer the right question
How many characters should be in a Scene in a single POV?
This, as others have said, is entirely up to you. I'm currently working on a project that will have 3-4 'main' POVs, and then have chapters from other viewpoints if necessary. One thing that is fun to play with narratorial instability and reliability, Don't have every character knowing everything, or having the same view. If there's a contrast in how an event is portrayed by two characters, it forces the reader to consider why that is. On the other hand, if you present just one viewpoint you can create a very biased unique 'voice' for a character. Here's a couple of examples from my own writing on Dakka that demonstrate this :
Oh, sorry, I thought that was what you meant by 'how many characters in a single POV'. If you could clarify what you meant, I'll try and answer the right question
How many characters should be in a Scene in a single POV?
Oh, right, so basically the exact opposite of the question I answers (how many POVs for one scene). The answer is, as many as you are comfortable writing. Again, so much depends on plot and character than there are no hard and fast rules, but here are a few guidelines depending on what you are trying to achieve.
If you're trying to establish the relationship between two characters (call them A and B), one of which is the narrator, having a third character (C) there can allow another voice to come through in his actions/responses that can shed more light on the relationship between A and B, so avoids the somewhat clunky thing of characters explaining their own relationships. For example (and this is oversimplified a lot), saying:
A hated B, and on seeing him, his hand went to his blade. sounds far more clunky than:
B entered, and A caught sight of him, immediately reaching for his sword. C stepped back, seeming suddenly wary of his companion (A)
If, on the other hand, you're trying to create an intimate and personal scene between A and B, then removing other characters (either by not featuring them, or just literally distancing A and B from them) can obviously add to that effect. To continue the example above:
A's sword was out in a flash, and B copied the movement, a sequence they had perfected across a dozen duels. Now, no one else in the room mattered; it was only the two of them, staring into eyes brimming with hatred. The crowd around them seemed to fade away to nothingness as the fight began. So this allows you to focus on the just the two characters by distancing them from others physically and literally.
On the other hand, if you want to create a group dynamic then having more characters is better, as the interplay between them becomes a good indicator of personalities that would take a while to build up doing them one by one. If you have a character that is hostile to another who is light-hearted, then it sets the former up as grim or serious, without having to create that character in isolation.
Hope that clears it up; in general, the only rule is that there are no rules!
Let me add, that this isn't going to be easy. Writing novels is hard and takes a lot of work. My best advice is this: Write a novel and finish it. Doesn't matter how crappy it is, just finish it. Everyone's first novel is crappy, but if you can finish it, you'll prove to yourself that you can and also you'll learn a lot more by doing so. Once that's out of the way, then you can try to write an actually good one.
And lastly, here's a fantastic pod cast that has some of the best advice I've heard. It's topical so you can go through and listen to them by topic, but I'd suggest listening to all of them. I know these guys and they know what they're talking about.
http://www.writingexcuses.com/
Edit: one last thing. Magic has to have a price and it has to have rules. Your reader has to know basically what it can and can't do. Otherwise you get the Star Trek tricorder syndrome where it just does whatever the plot needs it to and editors and readers don't look kindly on that.
Let me add, that this isn't going to be easy. Writing novels is hard and takes a lot of work. My best advice is this: Write a novel and finish it. Doesn't matter how crappy it is, just finish it. Everyone's first novel is crappy, but if you can finish it, you'll prove to yourself that you can and also you'll learn a lot more by doing so. Once that's out of the way, then you can try to write an actually good one.
And lastly, here's a fantastic pod cast that has some of the best advice I've heard. It's topical so you can go through and listen to them by topic, but I'd suggest listening to all of them. I know these guys and they know what they're talking about.
http://www.writingexcuses.com/
Edit: one last thing. Magic has to have a price and it has to have rules. Your reader has to know basically what it can and can't do. Otherwise you get the Star Trek tricorder syndrome where it just does whatever the plot needs it to and editors and readers don't look kindly on that.
Oh so I should keep the rules section where the mage talks about it? Oh okay
ANd thank you. I will save that to my Google drive for future reference.
And yeah this my third attempt at a novel, the first one was a 40k rip off, and the second one was the prequel to the current book I am writing. But I decided to leave it a mystery instead of talking about how a man becomes a god.
Oh, right, so basically the exact opposite of the question I answers (how many POVs for one scene). The answer is, as many as you are comfortable writing. Again, so much depends on plot and character than there are no hard and fast rules, but here are a few guidelines depending on what you are trying to achieve.
If you're trying to establish the relationship between two characters (call them A and B), one of which is the narrator, having a third character (C) there can allow another voice to come through in his actions/responses that can shed more light on the relationship between A and B, so avoids the somewhat clunky thing of characters explaining their own relationships. For example (and this is oversimplified a lot), saying:
A hated B, and on seeing him, his hand went to his blade. sounds far more clunky than:
B entered, and A caught sight of him, immediately reaching for his sword. C stepped back, seeming suddenly wary of his companion (A)
If, on the other hand, you're trying to create an intimate and personal scene between A and B, then removing other characters (either by not featuring them, or just literally distancing A and B from them) can obviously add to that effect. To continue the example above:
A's sword was out in a flash, and B copied the movement, a sequence they had perfected across a dozen duels. Now, no one else in the room mattered; it was only the two of them, staring into eyes brimming with hatred. The crowd around them seemed to fade away to nothingness as the fight began.
So this allows you to focus on the just the two characters by distancing them from others physically and literally.
On the other hand, if you want to create a group dynamic then having more characters is better, as the interplay between them becomes a good indicator of personalities that would take a while to build up doing them one by one. If you have a character that is hostile to another who is light-hearted, then it sets the former up as grim or serious, without having to create that character in isolation.
Hope that clears it up; in general, the only rule is that there are no rules!
For positioning in the chapter, it depends. If these characters feature elsewhere in the chapter, or if the end of it sets up the next event and therefore the next chapter, have it at the end. Instead, if you want to set that up, and the do something else for a bit and then come back for the next chapter, that could work to build suspense and provide contrast. Personally, though, I'd put it at the end and then lead straight into the next chapter.
Did you want a more detailed critique of it, bit by bit? I'm happy to do that if you want.
Grey Templar wrote: Generally, with a family or house you'll be looking at something like the factions in Game of Thrones. basically an extended family, but still close enough to have definite family ties(you can figure out how everyone is related to everyone else exactly) You can go either way, although House implies more individuals and may include unrelated persons who are bound in service while Family implies relation either by blood or marriage.
With a Clan, you are at a much larger group scale. Everyone is descended from a specific person or small group, but not everyone can say for sure exactly how. The tribal leaders will have a direct line most likely, but everyone else will be of unknown descent quality. Some people may not even be related, they've married or been adopted in.
As far as the involvement of women, a society with a strong emphasis on martial prowess could go either way. You could easily have it similar to many real life societies where, although women generally kept to the domestic sphere because of starting families, that was no real barrier. If you were a good fighter nobody cared what was between your legs. Just don't go out of the way of the story to show it. Have a good justification for it in the setting and use it to enhance the story.
I think that, depending on the fantasy series that I've read, whenever the author uses the term Clan specifically, they end up in a sort of Scottish Highlands sort of place, where it's a super small community... They're almost ALWAYS the "uber huge muscled long haired barbarian" and the chieftain nearly always rules via Might makes Right.
I agree that the involvment of women can be interesting. If you look at the Norse peoples (Norwegians, Danes, Swedes and Icelanders) the women are equals to men... they can own property, manage lands/businesses, etc (and usually, if they do own land, they are able to vote in the Thing), and while they didn't often become Vikings, they DID have to defend their homes from other Vikings who knew when their men had left the village, etc. so they often times needed to know how to fight and defend themselves.
Paradigm wrote: For positioning in the chapter, it depends. If these characters feature elsewhere in the chapter, or if the end of it sets up the next event and therefore the next chapter, have it at the end. Instead, if you want to set that up, and the do something else for a bit and then come back for the next chapter, that could work to build suspense and provide contrast. Personally, though, I'd put it at the end and then lead straight into the next chapter.
Did you want a more detailed critique of it, bit by bit? I'm happy to do that if you want.
Well any critique would help.
But they are just for that chapter. They will be mentioned later, and will return much later. It is the primary plot basically poking its head out and yelling. "I am the most important part of the book!"
It is also a very interesting part of the book, as it shows the villain for a brief moment.
OK, I'll do a detailed breakdown of it and post it some point tomorrow, if that's helpful.
If the extract is primarily a plot thing, then it might well work at the beginning, as you can then kind of put it to one side, create your main character work, and then bring it back in. I suppose the best example of that sort of thing would be the Battle of the Last Alliance at the start of the first LOTR movie, it achieves the same effect of setting up the plot and then moves away from that. It's a farily common technique, but it works.
Ok, here's a more detailed critique. None of this is intended to be harsh, so if I go on a bit, it's just to detail a way to make this even better Please don't think I'm being negative at all, getting feedback is what all writers need so I hope this helps.
“I Hope those men return soon, it is getting dark.” Sir Derick said to himself. Derick was a man of past forty. He looked around him, the walls of stone and iron, he stood upon everyday. He heard the sounds of men singing and dancing in the center of the outpost. Which was small and quaint.
At this point, you have a character talking to himself, which can be a good thing in that it adds a level of idiosyncrasy (maybe he is used to having people around him, or wishes people were?). However, it's better to show us something rather than telling us. Instead of him saying 'it's getting dark soon', you could have him saying 'I hope those men get back soon' as 'the sun sank behind the forest and night began to set in'. This sets up the environment, the time and the character, and it's obvious what he's getting at without spelling it out. A lot of the time, leaving such things to the reader can make the reading more interesting.
The last two sentences should be one longer one with a comma as it is, or you could rephrase it to make the sounds the subject, eg 'sounds of singing and dancing rose up from the outpost's quaint courtyard.' Again, it achieves more for less, in that is serves to separate Derick from the men and their revelry, presenting him maybe as lonely and distant. You could then add in a 'wistful thought of joining them' or something like that to hammer the effect home, and follow it with something like 'instead, he spent this evening like all the others before, atop the high walls.' Again, it's saying the same thing, but binding it all together so that everything helps build character and placement and setting, rather than just focusing on one (at the moment, your first sentence is setting, the second is character, the third is setting and character and the last two are setting)
Many men stood on the walls of the outpost this day and watched the immovable forests. They all watched and watched. Waiting for nothing to happen.
Here, it might be worth linking these men to Derick in some way, so that again it's building on character rather than moving rather abruptly away from him. Even something as simple as 'today, more men than usual stood with him, all watching and waiting, and he was glad not to be alone as the chills of night crept in' (Important bit underlined) So you can see how this sets up plot (more men=something's about to happen- you could do the opposite to create a sense of false security), character (his feelings about the fact) and suspense (Watching and waiting)
The man held his Glaive against the wall resting his aching arm's strength, as he looked out once more.
First off, the comma needs to be put after 'wall', not 'strength', and again, there's an opportunity for some character work building. Is his arm aching from the fact he's been on duty for a while, or his age? I don't think glaive needs to be capitalised, either;despite what spellcheck says, it's just a noun.
Also, maybe put something in about why he stopped looking in the first place? 'He could look at the stonework (boredom), staring back at the courtyard (loneliness), staring at the sunset (carelessness/relaxation)
“Sir Derick.” Came a voice behind him. “The Forest seems calm.”
He heard the chattering of mail of and metal.
Derick turned to see a familar man. “Ah Captain Calgar, What brings you here to the outpost of the Woodland Circle?”
At this bit, there's an opportunity to set up a character in a line or two, which you should capitalise on. Readers will always judge a character on their initial impression at first, so this is your chance to really get them to think of Calgar as you do. I'd put the 'chattering of metal' with the sounds of the voice, as he would hear both at the same time, and have Derick turn as he speaks. How he turns can set up both characters and their relationship. If he turns fast, he's eager to see an old friend, if he turns slowly it's because he's not looking forward to the encounter and so on and so forth.
As for the description of Calgar, think about all the things that you instantly judge someone on (subconciously) in real life. Imagine you walked up to this guy in the street and didn't know him; what would your thoughts be? Build the description from that, and you can instantly set up the same ideas in the mind of the audience. If he's familiar, explain why. You get the idea, sell us the character as Derick sees him.
“Nothing, just heard of a nasty rumor.” Calgar replied. “But Don’t we always as the Soldiers of the Southern Guard.”
“Ah. So you know of them.”
“Yes, I’ve heard many of them. But the Circle is home to unscrupulous creatures.” Calgar motioned with his hands.
Again, more active description will really help here. How does Calgar reply? What does he do with his hands precisely? Does Derick frown or force a smile or react at all when he speaks? Obviously, you don't want a constant narrative 'he did this and said this and then the other guy said that...' but dialogue and interaction are how you build characters
“That is the life of being here South of Meroth.” Derick looked back to the forest, and it seemed like the forest had moved suddenly. “Calgar. Something’s wrong. Since I have awoken.”
Calgar smiled and shook his head. “What? The forest? Nothing ever happens in that forest. Except those damn creatures.”
“It doesn’t seem like it should, but I feel like something is wrong. When is the next patrol going?” Derick asked.
“They should be going out in a moment.”
This is the first bit where things start to go amiss, so needs to be really punchy. A forest moving is a fairly radical and improbable change, and at the moment, Derick seems to take it a little lightly. Insead of just saying 'it seemed like the forest had moved', make something of it. Say, for example, that 'to Derick's tired eyes, the dark fringe of trees seemed a little closer. But that was impossible. He rubbed the sleep from them and blinked. No, it was definitely closer now. The inexplicable feeling of dread that had plagued him since he awoke suddenly gripped him again.'
Once more, it's all about combining character and plot and getting the reader to see what you see. You could add a addendum like ''when's the next patrol going?' Derick asked, feeling suddenly nervous for his comrades in arms.'
Derick held his glaive as he watched the forest. Steadily did he watch it. But his hands shivered still. “Its unusual, usually Sir Ansel and Sir Lysander are back by now.”
“It is rarity for them to be late, they probably found some trackings of a druid or something.”
“The Druids. Those bastards frighten me so..” Sir Derick began to tightly grip his Glaive.
Here, again, you can mingle character and plot. Derick is alarmed (make him grip the glaive 'with a shaking fist' as 'his eyes scoured the instantly foreboding forest') while Calgar fails to grasp the gravity of the situation. Have him remain cheerful or mocking, making him the subject of a kind of dramatic irony (we know he's in trouble, he doesn't)
“Just last week there were reports of masses of people getting past the Outpost Guards to our west. Must be some migration.” Calgar seemed to report. “Nothing ever here, not for centuries.”
The Two men looked out as the heard a sound in the distance. Near the Forest. It seemed like dusk had finally begun to set it course. The Daylight had begun to fade.
“I live for the dusk.” Derick said aloud, trying to calm the scene. “The calm serene air, the beautiful sun, and the rise of the three moons.”
Calgar laughed. “Yes, I do as well. Probably the best thing about the Southurn Guard is that we get the best views, and the food.”
Derick smiled slightly. “I’ve been at war twice in my life, I would like to think this would be a great place to retire.”
“I’ve heard about that. But there is no war here in the south. Just the hunt.”
This is good, but you could do little more with it. Show us the three moons rather than tell us, for example.
I'd also perhaps internalise some of the thoughts here, like the bit about retiring. Put it as a thought right after the bit about 'nothing happening'. Have the wars as 'a haze of memory of old battles past' or something. Again, it's showing rather than telling.
Derick nodded his head.
Calgar smiled, something caught his eye. At that same moment Derick looked back towards the forest.
The two of them were entranced as blue lights began to emit from the forest. They were enthralled by its almost alien beauty. As a cold scream echoed in the air. Calgar stood aback. “What was that?”
This bit needs to be a lot longer, and generally more 'epic'. Here, you set up something that's going to become a major plot point, that's meant to put the audience on edge, and one or two lines doesn't really do that. I see where you're going trying to be vague, but just expand on the description, maybe throw in some reaction to it, it'll really help the situation establish itself.
Overall, you're off to a good start. Looking at this, I'll reiterate a few things to always keep in mind:
- Show, don't tell
- Make sure you're keeping the interactions, descriptions, plot and character all mixed in together. If you can get one sentence, paragraph or section to advance all of those then it'll read far better than if you keep it purely descriptive, then narrative, then explanatory.
- Always be thinking about what stuff means. Have characters act like they would, imagine them playing out this scene and put in a lot more about them. At the moment, all you really get from this is that they are old friends, one has been to war, and they're now used peace. Even in such a short piece, you could completely develop these characters. Even if you don't come back to them later, every characterised depth to be interesting.
So I hope all that was useful, and do keep on with this, there's some good stuff here. If you want any more feedback or advice, I'm more than happy to help.
Danka. I am rewriting it anyway it was the first draft of it.
I will keep all that in mind. I didn't post the whole thing. Its around two pages long. But the main reasoning is that some parts rush to much and the pacing is all over the things.
Yeah, drafting, drafting and drafting again is the life of a writer, so I hope the pointers were helpful.
Pacing is something that will probably sort itself once you get into a rhythm of writing, once you've planned out where it's going as a plot, how long it takes to get there and what happens when it does, even when you deviate from that plan (and 90% of the time you will) you at least have some idea where it's going. It's fine to have fast/slow/longer/shorter bits, though, as this is part of effect, so the only time to be concerned is if you feel like you're bogged down in a rut or you're rushing towards something. At those points, stepping away and having a good think about where it's going is the best option.
Is two thousand men for a large house or no? (Think California big in terms of land. It is a plains area with rough hills, but it is along the path of traders and merchants. Though they instead own a mansion and not a castle.)
Mansion or Castle for a Large House? (The house is relatively new.)
I currently have 5 Mercenary Groups, The Golden Horde (Largest and foot sloggers), The Knights of the White Lance (Heavy Calvary Specialists and pikemen), The Amberian Legion (Barbaric Mercenaries, who use hit and run tactics), The Warriors of the Bloody Sword (Sword Masters), and the Obsida Knights (Magical Soldiers, who are small and elite). The Knights of the White Lance are located in Meroth (The Setting of the first portion of the book) and number only five thousand. Should I make them an active player in the story or no? Its been bugging me, because they are just sitting there with potential but I don't know if I should bring them into the story or not. Because the golden horde will only be mentioned, and The Amberian Legion and Obsidia Knights will be apart of the book much later on. I am thinking this might be too many organizations to remember.
Look at the GoT books for Mercenary bands... He has some that cap out at a couple hundred (they only induct new members upon the death of one thus they have the exact same number no matter what), and some that are a few thousand.... I think it depends on the Mercenary's leadership that would determine how large the merc companies would be.
As for 2k men for a "Large House" it's not really knowable... do you mean that there are 2k "Knights" or 2k "fighting men"... If you're looking to cover a landmass the size of California with feudal lords, you kind of have to assume that most "lords" or mayors or whatever could really only control their lands for about a days ride on horse. I mean, look at the size of traditional areas of England... Yorkshire, Lancashire, etc.They are relatively small, and could probably be "covered" by someone on horseback in a short period of time, as this allowed greater ease in Command and Control, calling up the levied "troops" (aka, peasants with bows and gak) and greater law enforcement.
You certainly could cover the landmass of California with 2,000 knightly types, but I think it'd be a stretch to say the whole area is under great control (unless you throw in some areas that are uninhabited/uninhabitable) as any messages are going to take a lot more time to get there than me typing this up here.
As for age, really old is only "unreasonable" if you make it so... Again, look at the GoT series, and the Maester up on the Wall is basically the last surviving Targaryen, and is something like 100+ years old. In a normal medieval period this would be unreasonable, however it's a Fantasy novel, so in this realm it isn't unreasonable... You could also vary this by geographic terrain. For instance, if you have a desert dwelling nomadic people, they'd probably live short, harsh lives be outstanding warriors in their manner of warfare, but that style doesn't mesh well with the people who live in the forested areas, because the guys from the forests fight in a different way, venture into the foothills and mine stuff, so use more metal armor, etc. It's fairly similar to if you study how people lived in the Medieval periods, there was a sort of happy medium place where people lived moderate to long lives due to the climate and resource availability. As you move higher into the mountains, and farther into the deserts, resources become more scarce, living becomes harder and we see a greater tendency for violent means of acquiring necessary resources.
Is two thousand men for a large house or no? (Think California big in terms of land. It is a plains area with rough hills, but it is along the path of traders and merchants. Though they instead own a mansion and not a castle.)
Mansion or Castle for a Large House? (The house is relatively new.)
I currently have 5 Mercenary Groups, The Golden Horde (Largest and foot sloggers), The Knights of the White Lance (Heavy Calvary Specialists and pikemen), The Amberian Legion (Barbaric Mercenaries, who use hit and run tactics), The Warriors of the Bloody Sword (Sword Masters), and the Obsida Knights (Magical Soldiers, who are small and elite). The Knights of the White Lance are located in Meroth (The Setting of the first portion of the book) and number only five thousand. Should I make them an active player in the story or no? Its been bugging me, because they are just sitting there with potential but I don't know if I should bring them into the story or not. Because the golden horde will only be mentioned, and The Amberian Legion and Obsidia Knights will be apart of the book much later on. I am thinking this might be too many organizations to remember.
1) As big as you want it to be. Typically they weren't huge, and were quite varied in size. Anywhere from single sellswords hiring themselves out to traveling merchants as security to hundreds of men following an experienced captain who sold the groups services to kings. Historically, there were even entire kingdoms who sold their soldiers to others(the Italians were famous for this. The crossbowmen the French had an Agincourt were Italian)
A few thousand men under a single banner wouldn't be beyond the realm of plausibility.
2) It is certainly not unheard for people to live over a hundred years even in the middle ages. Average lifespan was certainly much shorter, but there was probably a lot of variability. If you were fortunate enough to have reasonable nutrition and didn't catch any major diseases, you had decent chances. Working class people wouldn't have had any such luck, but anyone in a skilled trade or someone who was wealthy could certainly afford things. A blacksmith who worked for a noblemen could probably expect his master to pay for his medical treatment(such as it is) if it was serious enough. Smiths are valuable employees and taking care of them would be top priority.
3) Ok, California is HUGE. Its bigger than many European countries. about 423,000 square kilometers. No way in hell are only 2,000 guys holding that much territory. Even if they were all mounted on the fastest horses. In a medieval period where it takes armed men actively holding an area you're looking at probably looking at several million. And more realistically, you're looking at a feudal kingdom instead of the holdings of a noble house where its token loyalty to the King but reality is that the nobles pay little more than lipservice to the king and are scheming against each other and the crown. See feudal era france(where the King was actually in grave danger if he left the Isle de'France)
A possible exception is if its very sparsely populated, so its mostly wilderness with a bunch of scattered settlements and towns. In which case its still a massive amount of land to hold for only 2000 guys.
4) A fortified Motte and Bailey if you aren't going for a castle.
And more realistically, you're looking at a feudal kingdom instead of the holdings of a noble house where its token loyalty to the King but reality is that the nobles pay little more than lipservice to the king and are scheming against each other and the crown. See feudal era france(where the King was actually in grave danger if he left the Isle de'France)
Not truly on topic here, but one of the key differences between the English and French monarchies, and why England went through so many fewer "revolutions" was in the manner that people were knighted.
See, in England when a man was knighted, or elevated to higher noble status, he swore his oaths to God, King/Country, Liege Lord. In that order. This was due to the King granting the right of creating a knight to anyone holding the rank of knight or higher, in HIS name. In France the oaths went: God, Lord, King/Country... Though usually it would probably be viewed as Country then King, depending on who was sitting in the chair at the time. The French mindset was that a Noble was noble by God's divine rights, so who was the King to tell them who they could or couldn't raise up as a knight? This is why we can also see the major power struggles within France, and what at various key points during France's numerous wars, that a suboptimal army was sent to face the English/Germans/Italians, etc. Also why we see so many instances throughout their history of sending mercenary forces up against national armies.
Is two thousand men for a large house or no? (Think California big in terms of land. It is a plains area with rough hills, but it is along the path of traders and merchants. Though they instead own a mansion and not a castle.)
Mansion or Castle for a Large House? (The house is relatively new.)
I currently have 5 Mercenary Groups, The Golden Horde (Largest and foot sloggers), The Knights of the White Lance (Heavy Calvary Specialists and pikemen), The Amberian Legion (Barbaric Mercenaries, who use hit and run tactics), The Warriors of the Bloody Sword (Sword Masters), and the Obsida Knights (Magical Soldiers, who are small and elite). The Knights of the White Lance are located in Meroth (The Setting of the first portion of the book) and number only five thousand. Should I make them an active player in the story or no? Its been bugging me, because they are just sitting there with potential but I don't know if I should bring them into the story or not. Because the golden horde will only be mentioned, and The Amberian Legion and Obsidia Knights will be apart of the book much later on. I am thinking this might be too many organizations to remember.
1) As big as you want it to be. Typically they weren't huge, and were quite varied in size. Anywhere from single sellswords hiring themselves out to traveling merchants as security to hundreds of men following an experienced captain who sold the groups services to kings. Historically, there were even entire kingdoms who sold their soldiers to others(the Italians were famous for this. The crossbowmen the French had an Agincourt were Italian)
A few thousand men under a single banner wouldn't be beyond the realm of plausibility.
2) It is certainly not unheard for people to live over a hundred years even in the middle ages. Average lifespan was certainly much shorter, but there was probably a lot of variability. If you were fortunate enough to have reasonable nutrition and didn't catch any major diseases, you had decent chances. Working class people wouldn't have had any such luck, but anyone in a skilled trade or someone who was wealthy could certainly afford things. A blacksmith who worked for a noblemen could probably expect his master to pay for his medical treatment(such as it is) if it was serious enough. Smiths are valuable employees and taking care of them would be top priority.
3) Ok, California is HUGE. Its bigger than many European countries. about 423,000 square kilometers. No way in hell are only 2,000 guys holding that much territory. Even if they were all mounted on the fastest horses. In a medieval period where it takes armed men actively holding an area you're looking at probably looking at several million. And more realistically, you're looking at a feudal kingdom instead of the holdings of a noble house where its token loyalty to the King but reality is that the nobles pay little more than lipservice to the king and are scheming against each other and the crown. See feudal era france(where the King was actually in grave danger if he left the Isle de'France)
A possible exception is if its very sparsely populated, so its mostly wilderness with a bunch of scattered settlements and towns. In which case its still a massive amount of land to hold for only 2000 guys.
4) A fortified Motte and Bailey if you aren't going for a castle.
Ah. Well. Then I have to work on a few things. Because the Country is bigger than texas. O.O. It is held by 10 Houses. The Litor House (The main character's family) is not very powerful in terms of troops, but it maintains it's hold over a very large land by the use of militia groups. So In total it has 2,000 Men (including knights and Man At Arms) at their mansion and their main operating area. But that does not include their villages or the towns, or the single city they hold. But they hold the least amount of people. AS the further south you go. The Colder it gets.
Yeah there is one mercenary group that has over 30,000. But that is only because they are popular and are found on all three contients as it is not lead by a single leader but by several. In order to keep their love of gold continue flowing. The rest of the mercenary groups are only around 5,000 to as little as 200.
I mean what is a ridicously amount of time for a war to last? How long would it take for people to completely forget about a war? Is it unreasonable to make it a thousand years after the fall of a great civilization so it is barely remembered or no?
They can be pretty big. As Grey points out, historically there were entire cultures that made a good living selling their services.
The thing to keep in mind about mercenaries is they they fight to be paid. They won't stab you in the back at the drop of a hat, that's bad for business, but if you don't pay them, they're gonna stab you in the back (the Byzantines learned this the very hard way, having apparently not learned from the earlier Roman experience).
How old is too old to be reasonable?
Life expectancy throughout history has been lower because of Infant and Maternal mortality. Realistically, assuming you lived to 20, you're chances to make it to 70 were not that slim. Women died a lot due to complications in birth, and many children just didn't make it past 10 for various reasons. Adult men though could lead very long lives assuming they weren't pillaged or anything.
Is two thousand men for a large house or no?
I'm with Grey. 2000 is also very large for an organized family group.
I'm with Grey. 2000 is also very large for an organized family group.
As I said in my post, this really needs to be broken down.. Is it 2000 men, all of whom are knights or some higher form of nobility? or is it a couple of knights/nobles and the rest of the men that totals 2000. THAT is going to make a big difference.
As for "how long is too long for a war" ?? Keep in mind that we literally have The Hundred Years' War between England and France... Rome was nearly constantly at war with SOMEONE for it's whole, what 500-600 year run?? With a feudal society, war wasn't a constant thing, you had the campaign season and that was basically it for each year... If you tried to carry on too long, travel became difficult to impossible, and it'd be impossible to keep that army fed/clothed for the winter with no supplies coming in. It wasn't like WW1, where due to technology we could bomb the gak out of each other year round.
I mean what is a ridicously amount of time for a war to last? How long would it take for people to completely forget about a war? Is it unreasonable to make it a thousand years after the fall of a great civilization so it is barely remembered or no?
1000 years is certainly plenty of time for it to fade from general memory, especially if there isn't much record keeping. After a thousand years you'd still have some folk tales about it, but little actual fact would remain.
You're going to have several generations at minimum.
You have the actual lifespan of the veterans who actually fought in that war. Guys go to war at ages anywhere between 14 and 60 realistically.
14 year old kid spends 20 years fighting. Dies at age 73 a wizened old warrior. His children and grandchildren retell his old warstories over and over again. Minor details change. Eventually it becomes a ballad with dozens of variations.
Minimum you are looking at 2 generations after the death of the first hand participants for accuracy to degrade.So within 150-200 years all that may remain of the great war might be tavern tales of some specific battles or characters.
Another 100 years goes by and now they're just stories that as far as everyone is concerned never really happened.
Another 100 years and the tales might not even be told anymore in favor of new tales.
I mean what is a ridicously amount of time for a war to last? How long would it take for people to completely forget about a war? Is it unreasonable to make it a thousand years after the fall of a great civilization so it is barely remembered or no?
1000 years is certainly plenty of time for it to fade from general memory, especially if there isn't much record keeping. After a thousand years you'd still have some folk tales about it, but little actual fact would remain.
You're going to have several generations at minimum.
You have the actual lifespan of the veterans who actually fought in that war. Guys go to war at ages anywhere between 14 and 60 realistically.
14 year old kid spends 20 years fighting. Dies at age 73 a wizened old warrior. His children and grandchildren retell his old warstories over and over again. Minor details change. Eventually it becomes a ballad with dozens of variations.
Minimum you are looking at 2 generations after the death of the first hand participants for accuracy to degrade.So within 150-200 years all that may remain of the great war might be tavern tales of some specific battles or characters.
Another 100 years goes by and now they're just stories that as far as everyone is concerned never really happened.
Another 100 years and the tales might not even be told anymore in favor of new tales.
So yeah. I want it gone, just only myths and recollections by the oldest public peoples of the tales. Sort of like the White Walker Idea. As there are many dark things that happened during the fall of Talderia.
I mean it is one of the darkest parts of history. For a very good reason.
So yeah. I want it gone, just only myths and recollections by the oldest public peoples.
I must have misunderstood your intent there... But yeah, I think it'd be fairly easy to come up with something that happened in the "distant past" that has been reduced to legend and myth at the point your characters are in real time.... There are literally a TON of stories out there that have this (Wheel of Time, GoT, etc). Of course, if it's far enough in the past for legends and myths, then you absolutely MUST come up with a totally epic name for this thing
So yeah. I want it gone, just only myths and recollections by the oldest public peoples.
I must have misunderstood your intent there... But yeah, I think it'd be fairly easy to come up with something that happened in the "distant past" that has been reduced to legend and myth at the point your characters are in real time.... There are literally a TON of stories out there that have this (Wheel of Time, GoT, etc). Of course, if it's far enough in the past for legends and myths, then you absolutely MUST come up with a totally epic name for this thing
Its Called The War of The Dead. (Currently)
But I need to figure out a better name. Maybe something latin or something that sparks alot of imagination.
So yeah. I want it gone, just only myths and recollections by the oldest public peoples.
I must have misunderstood your intent there... But yeah, I think it'd be fairly easy to come up with something that happened in the "distant past" that has been reduced to legend and myth at the point your characters are in real time.... There are literally a TON of stories out there that have this (Wheel of Time, GoT, etc). Of course, if it's far enough in the past for legends and myths, then you absolutely MUST come up with a totally epic name for this thing
Its Called The War of The Dead. (Currently)
But I need to figure out a better name. Maybe something latin or something that sparks alot of imagination.
Why not something like "Day of the Dead" ?? This way, the entire, massive mythological war could be boiled down to the epic myth of the "final day" of the conflict? I usually see names like "The Sundering" or "The Fall"... things like that in most Fantasy novels, when the common folk, and nobles alike mention tales from that period they nearly always mention this term, so it should be somewhat short to say.
So yeah. I want it gone, just only myths and recollections by the oldest public peoples.
I must have misunderstood your intent there... But yeah, I think it'd be fairly easy to come up with something that happened in the "distant past" that has been reduced to legend and myth at the point your characters are in real time.... There are literally a TON of stories out there that have this (Wheel of Time, GoT, etc). Of course, if it's far enough in the past for legends and myths, then you absolutely MUST come up with a totally epic name for this thing
Its Called The War of The Dead. (Currently)
But I need to figure out a better name. Maybe something latin or something that sparks alot of imagination.
Why not something like "Day of the Dead" ?? This way, the entire, massive mythological war could be boiled down to the epic myth of the "final day" of the conflict? I usually see names like "The Sundering" or "The Fall"... things like that in most Fantasy novels, when the common folk, and nobles alike mention tales from that period they nearly always mention this term, so it should be somewhat short to say.
One problem is that Day of the Dead exists in the real world and everyone will think of that.
But it could be known as the Era of the Dead. Which is still pretty short and enjoyable to say. As it wasn't a single day. I mean it would be fun, but its hard to think of something using the word Dead.
As for actual duration of a war, you'd need to define what you mean by war.
Actual fighting, or like the hundred year war which is periods of intermittent fighting broken by interludes of relative peace.
Actual fighting is going to be over fairly quick, the longest periods of warfare will be sieges where its just a waiting game. If 2 armies join in battle, you will only occasionally have a series of successive draws. One side or the other is going to back down before something permanent is lost. Almost nobody is going to fight to the death. The winner would be left very vulnerable to other rivals. No sense winning a kingdom if your neighbor, who was patiently watching you and your opponent fight, is just going to march over and take what you just won without any fight at all. This is the origin of having champions duke it out instead of the armies, a duel to settle the matter while the army was really just for show(unless someone cheated)
You could easily have 2 nations at war for hundreds of years, but only a few major battles. Most of the conflict being small scale skirmishes, raids, and general probing for weakness. Maybe a large army crosses the border and is repelled in a large battle, or there is a siege which lasts for several years with the city/castle eventually falling or the besiegers fall back.
Maybe a couple border cities and castles which trade hands several times over the course of the centuries. So its war, but on a practical basis its mostly just a waiting game with little actual fighting.
The duration of a siege could be highly varied. Some of the best Castles ever built had stores that could stand a siege for years and years before running out of supplies.
If a fortified city was built on a river or coastline, it could actually be quite difficult to completely encircle the city. You'd need to cover both sides of the river, and the river itself, to cut off supplies. Or if it was a coastal city you'd need ships to blockade the port as well as your army for the main road.
An example would be something like this.
2 dukes both have roughly 10,000 men. They're at war for each other's lands.
Duke A and Duke B meet on the field of battle with their armies.
Duke B wins the battle, killing 1200 of A's men while only losing 800 of his own. Duke A calls a truce and cedes a portion of his land to Duke B in exchange for an end to hostilities. An amicable solution all around, because both Duke A and Duke B know that fighting till there was one undisputed winner would be bad, because they have a neighbor named Duke C who also has 10,000 men and would gladly take over both of their lands if they both fought to the bitter end. The winner would likely only have a thousand or so men left at the end, and be easy pickings. Thus the amicable solution is for the loser to be determined early and give up something valuable in exchange for both of them getting to quit while each is ahead.
I mean what is a ridicously amount of time for a war to last? How long would it take for people to completely forget about a war? Is it unreasonable to make it a thousand years after the fall of a great civilization so it is barely remembered or no?
1000 years is certainly plenty of time for it to fade from general memory, especially if there isn't much record keeping. After a thousand years you'd still have some folk tales about it, but little actual fact would remain.
You're going to have several generations at minimum.
You have the actual lifespan of the veterans who actually fought in that war. Guys go to war at ages anywhere between 14 and 60 realistically.
14 year old kid spends 20 years fighting. Dies at age 73 a wizened old warrior. His children and grandchildren retell his old warstories over and over again. Minor details change. Eventually it becomes a ballad with dozens of variations.
Minimum you are looking at 2 generations after the death of the first hand participants for accuracy to degrade.So within 150-200 years all that may remain of the great war might be tavern tales of some specific battles or characters.
Another 100 years goes by and now they're just stories that as far as everyone is concerned never really happened.
Another 100 years and the tales might not even be told anymore in favor of new tales.
For a story I wrote, the elves (who are not at all Tolkien looking pretty people, but little, blue, goblinish things with red hair) first invaded the faerie forest and had a rather large war with them, they won (sort of) and the faeries just waited, and 700 years later, the same bunch of faeries came and utterly slaughtered all the villages and towns near and in their forest, starting the second war, which they won- although the elves commited many atrocities, which were largely forgotten by them in a few hundred years but the faeries hated them to an extreme, and by time their second generation came it had been more then 1500 years since the first fae-elf war, and elves returned, needing wood and the third war broke out (people generally think the faeries either aren't real or their powers are played up in stories for dramatic effect) the elves lost again and the faeries left the forest in huge numbers, sweeping across their kingdom and killing thousands, the elves fleeing in droves to the human lands and the forest grew. It is now utterly avoided save by the very stupid, and it is only about 100 years after that do the faeries attempt any sort of peace.
Moral I suppose, don't cut down trees that aren't yours lol
One problem is that Day of the Dead exists in the real world and everyone will think of that.
But it could be known as the Era of the Dead. Which is still pretty short and enjoyable to say. As it wasn't a single day. I mean it would be fun, but its hard to think of something using the word Dead.
Perhaps we could get a bit more information on this war and how it was finished? I mean, if it was this huge generation spanning conflict between the living and "undead" (i presume?) then how was it ended? If one hero sacrificed himself to end the war, then perhaps something like "The Sacrifice" or something similar would work? It's a bit difficult without knowing more, ya know?
One problem is that Day of the Dead exists in the real world and everyone will think of that.
But it could be known as the Era of the Dead. Which is still pretty short and enjoyable to say. As it wasn't a single day. I mean it would be fun, but its hard to think of something using the word Dead.
Perhaps we could get a bit more information on this war and how it was finished? I mean, if it was this huge generation spanning conflict between the living and "undead" (i presume?) then how was it ended? If one hero sacrificed himself to end the war, then perhaps something like "The Sacrifice" or something similar would work? It's a bit difficult without knowing more, ya know?
It basically ended when a god was born, the creation of a new a race, and the extermination of an entire people in Talderia (like all of talderia, like everyone was killed), the death of the primary royal bloodline, and the end of magic in the east (only in the east). It is unknown how all this happened on the same day. But that is only a myth that it lasted a day.
In which case you might have a case of nobody actually know what the heck happened because everyone nearby died.
The birth of this god kills everyone nearby, or at least most of them. This event also causes magic to dry up(divine births are murder on the mana bill. Universe withholds mana till you pay your bill)
New god on a power trip makes his own race, they take up the void left by all the people killed by his creation(kinda like Slannesh)
This all happens almost instantly. Nobody knows what happened, so stories are made up about it(each different from the next, some true and some false) and eventually people get bored and move onto the next thing.
Such an event wouldn't go away, but it could definitely get twisted to no longer resemble what actually happened.
You'd have a tale of the Taldarians being punished by the gods for some horrible crime and wiped off the face of the earth.
A tale of the birth of a diety.
A creation story of X race.
A magician obsessed with eternal life and his own Apotheosis has some crazy magic experiment gone horribly wrong, or right, which causes magic to no longer work(a magic black hole if you will)
Stories which all might be true, and a bunch more which aren't. Nobody knows what the actual truth is. Some may claim one is true and one is false, but both are really true(or false)
Grey Templar wrote: In which case you might have a case of nobody actually know what the heck happened because everyone nearby died.
The birth of this god kills everyone nearby, or at least most of them. This event also causes magic to dry up(divine births are murder on the mana bill. Universe withholds mana till you pay your bill)
New god on a power trip makes his own race, they take up the void left by all the people killed by his creation(kinda like Slannesh)
This all happens almost instantly. Nobody knows what happened, so stories are made up about it(each different from the next, some true and some false) and eventually people get bored and move onto the next thing.
Such an event wouldn't go away, but it could definitely get twisted to no longer resemble what actually happened.
You'd have a tale of the Taldarians being punished by the gods for some horrible crime and wiped off the face of the earth.
A tale of the birth of a diety.
A creation story of X race.
A magician obsessed with eternal life and his own Apotheosis has some crazy magic experiment gone horribly wrong, or right, which causes magic to no longer work(a magic black hole if you will)
Stories which all might be true, and a bunch more which aren't. Nobody knows what the actual truth is. Some may claim one is true and one is false, but both are really true(or false)
Wow you predicted how I wrote it hahaha.
It does have its inspirations from Slaanesh. But it is a very interesting story. That I plan on actually having someone who was there talk about it. And no the person is not really a survivor.
One of the cool things you can do with oral history is create multiple versions of a history. Maybe one side says Brandon the Great put his butter on the underside of his toast and the other says he put it on the top side This easily forms the basis for family feuds and sectarian conflicts and leaves readers with an uncertainty of who is really in the right. Maybe you want to encourage them to take sides or you want the reader to be impartial, but conflicting bias between narrators will make your world more real.
But I need to figure out a better name. Maybe something latin or something that sparks alot of imagination.
Latin is overdone. My advice? Do some serious work and create a viable language yourself. Start here. Making a good fictional language isn't as easy as making up some words. You need to create roots, suffix, preffix, a grammar system. A good fictional language to study (as much as I hate Karen Travis) is Mando'a which contains all the markers of a functional language. There are also the languages of J.R. Tolkein and his Lord of the Rings books. Eventually you'll want to start making your own idioms as idioms are important to a language like rattles to a rattle snake.
Making a fictional language will be difficult but it's very easy to make it up as you go once you've learned the basic rules of how languages function in a society.
My question for people is should I do it multicultured? Like have black skinned people? OR fail to mention what skin color my characters are throughout the series unless it matters to the plot (Like the main villain's skin color)
The key thing here is too watch out for Unfortunate Implications. Give that page a quick read and you'll get the idea.
My question for people is should I do it multicultured? Like have black skinned people? OR fail to mention what skin color my characters are throughout the series unless it matters to the plot (Like the main villain's skin color)
The key thing here is too watch out for Unfortunate Implications. Give that page a quick read and you'll get the idea.
Interesting.
I will keep that in mind. I mainly have the villians skin color as a matter because he is from a very cold place. I would not think that from evolution that people would have blacker skin. I would think they would have fairer skin. As he is apart of a long dead species of humans.
As I have made the main character bisexual (Or I imply that he is, which would be looked down upon in a Dark Age culture). Because it seemed befitting to his character, he is not really a pervert in that sense. He just stopped caring a while ago.
The idea of unfortunate implications isn't to say you should never do things because you'll be accused on being a bigot. It's more a warning that when handling certain subjects, be tactful and aware as best you can of how things might be construed.
LordofHats wrote: The idea of unfortunate implications isn't to say you should never do things because you'll be accused on being a bigot. It's more a warning that when handling certain subjects, be tactful and aware as best you can of how things might be construed.
I'll try my best and try to avoid those implications that could possibly happen. Or you know in this world ever since there are so many weird creatures that skin color isn't seen that much of an issue. But more of. Where you come from?
Would druids use rune stones? (Like good luck charms?)
Should I had a thesaurus to sound out my names?
What type of armor would be good to be in this world, If I am thinking of king arthurian knights and such?
Should I make multiple religions? How would I go about doing this?
-Sure... Druids, and by extension any other sort of shamanistic or religious being would potentially wear superstitious items (or wear mundane items in a superstitious manner)
-Up to you. Sometimes it may be best to just let the reader decide how it's pronounced and only bother with it if you get a movie deal
-Armor should probably be handled in various ways. As we know now, things like plate armor (like swords) are expensive and take great expertise to make... This means that a wearer of plate armor a combination of Wealthy and Important. Scale male, ring mail, chain mail and the like are all much cheaper to make, cheaper to maintain and thus would be seen much more often on the "common" soldier. This also depends on metal ore scarcity, the region the wearer is from (for instance, scale male as worn by Arab warriors in the middle ages would have been cooler to wear in the 100+ degree weather against the Christians wearing their standard chain and padded clothing) Depending on the depth you want, you can even go so far as to have guys wearing Brigandines, which would allow for more of a GoT sort of imagery, where EVERYONE wears a house sigil bold as day.
Ultimately this would be up to you, of course... But, for more of an Arthurian feel, the mounted knightly types should be in at least partial plate (which if Arthur were real, they wouldn't have really worn plate, )
-Religions... Judging from your list of deities/devils, I would suggest the entire World recognize a single pantheon, but each house/nation/city or whatever would worship whichever particular one they felt more strongly about. This can create some sectarian differences for your story. without coming across too much as a Christians vs. Jews vs. Muslims sort of thing (as in, all three worship the "same" God... just the others worship him/her wrong).. Perhaps nations that don't carry a common language (if there is a big difference there) could have a different name for different deities (Ares/Mars, Njord/Neptune/Poseidon, etc) but the symbols remain relatively similar allowing merchants and travelers the ability to pray to their preferred deity without too much difficulty.
My question for people is should I do it multicultured? Like have black skinned people? OR fail to mention what skin color my characters are throughout the series unless it matters to the plot (Like the main villain's skin color)
Is skin color influenced in anyway by the areas they are located in. Like in warmer temperatures what would they look like? In colder temperatures would they have a paler skin tone?
If it's relevant. As for area and the influence on that, just think about real life. Darker skin typically denotes a warmer place of origin.
Would druids use rune stones? (Like good luck charms?)
Why the hell not? It's your setting, go for it.
Should I had a thesaurus to sound out my names?
If you feel it's neccessary. I'd definitely put a 'phrasebook' of any languages you invent in the back, just so people have a frame of reference without clogging up the narrative with literal word-for-word translations.
What type of armor would be good to be in this world, If I am thinking of king arthurian knights and such?
If you're going for Dark Ages/going into Medieval, then I think Plate Armour would definitely be reserved for the high-ranking lords and knights, and even then would be limited. The common soldier would probably have a mail shirt, and then mostly leather armour (think the Rohirrim in LOTR)
Should I stay strictly to made up creatures or draw inspiration from other creatures that are not used that much from celtic, anglosaxxon, scottish, from the mythos? (Like Kelpies, Barghest, Donestre, Cù Sìth, Drauqr, Werebears, Nuckalavee, Brollachan, Sheelycoat, Slaugh.)
Either or, really. Most creatures in fantasy these days are derivative in some way from some kind of tradition of mythology. You might want to try putting a different spin on it, but no one is going to stop reading just because your zombies are zombies and your orcs are orcs.
Should I make multiple religions? How would I go about doing this?
Again, it's down to preference. Will it serve the plot to have multiple religions? For example, if there's a huge unnatural phenomennon (such as the dead rising from their graves) then having multiple perspectives on it could be interesting, you could have one sect blaming their god of the Dead while another sees it as punishment from their one and only god.
Another option would be to have the same pantheon for all, but with different tribes/houses/clans holding a different god/godess above the others. Could lead to some diversity and potential conflict.
My question for people is should I do it multicultured? Like have black skinned people? OR fail to mention what skin color my characters are throughout the series unless it matters to the plot (Like the main villain's skin color)
Is skin color influenced in anyway by the areas they are located in. Like in warmer temperatures what would they look like? In colder temperatures would they have a paler skin tone?
If it's relevant. As for area and the influence on that, just think about real life. Darker skin typically denotes a warmer place of origin.
Would druids use rune stones? (Like good luck charms?)
Why the hell not? It's your setting, go for it.
Should I had a thesaurus to sound out my names?
If you feel it's neccessary. I'd definitely put a 'phrasebook' of any languages you invent in the back, just so people have a frame of reference without clogging up the narrative with literal word-for-word translations.
What type of armor would be good to be in this world, If I am thinking of king arthurian knights and such?
If you're going for Dark Ages/going into Medieval, then I think Plate Armour would definitely be reserved for the high-ranking lords and knights, and even then would be limited. The common soldier would probably have a mail shirt, and then mostly leather armour (think the Rohirrim in LOTR)
Should I stay strictly to made up creatures or draw inspiration from other creatures that are not used that much from celtic, anglosaxxon, scottish, from the mythos? (Like Kelpies, Barghest, Donestre, Cù Sìth, Drauqr, Werebears, Nuckalavee, Brollachan, Sheelycoat, Slaugh.)
Either or, really. Most creatures in fantasy these days are derivative in some way from some kind of tradition of mythology. You might want to try putting a different spin on it, but no one is going to stop reading just because your zombies are zombies and your orcs are orcs.
Should I make multiple religions? How would I go about doing this?
Again, it's down to preference. Will it serve the plot to have multiple religions? For example, if there's a huge unnatural phenomennon (such as the dead rising from their graves) then having multiple perspectives on it could be interesting, you could have one sect blaming their god of the Dead while another sees it as punishment from their one and only god.
Another option would be to have the same pantheon for all, but with different tribes/houses/clans holding a different god/godess above the others. Could lead to some diversity and potential conflict.
The skin bit I thought I knew the answer too, But I felt kind of racist in someway shape or form.
The pronouncing section would do wonders if I added it in.
I'll do that all. Everything suggested.
The main bit I am talking about is that the gods do serve a purpose. There is a single god there who seems quite out of place. The gods will be involved to a limited degree, but they would be lead by so called prophets, or their warriors who come down to aid them. But are they really? There would be differing opinions. Some characters will think the gods will be helping them or are on their side. I will try to ensure that I do not confirm gods are real, and have some who worship a single deity. I mean only one god will be confirmed to be real.
But yeah. I made it my mission to avoid orcs. And to add creatures that are rarely seen in any types of stories. Like the Nucklavee,
I gave a different twist on what the monsters are like. The creatures are suppose to scare you not dance around in circles.
So I should stay with single pantheon idea? Yeah I was thinking about having some houses raise certain gods way above others and other houses to be secuilar and not really care.
Would druids use rune stones? (Like good luck charms?)
Should I had a thesaurus to sound out my names?
What type of armor would be good to be in this world, If I am thinking of king arthurian knights and such?
Should I make multiple religions? How would I go about doing this?
-Sure... Druids, and by extension any other sort of shamanistic or religious being would potentially wear superstitious items (or wear mundane items in a superstitious manner)
-Up to you. Sometimes it may be best to just let the reader decide how it's pronounced and only bother with it if you get a movie deal
-Armor should probably be handled in various ways. As we know now, things like plate armor (like swords) are expensive and take great expertise to make... This means that a wearer of plate armor a combination of Wealthy and Important. Scale male, ring mail, chain mail and the like are all much cheaper to make, cheaper to maintain and thus would be seen much more often on the "common" soldier. This also depends on metal ore scarcity, the region the wearer is from (for instance, scale male as worn by Arab warriors in the middle ages would have been cooler to wear in the 100+ degree weather against the Christians wearing their standard chain and padded clothing) Depending on the depth you want, you can even go so far as to have guys wearing Brigandines, which would allow for more of a GoT sort of imagery, where EVERYONE wears a house sigil bold as day.
Ultimately this would be up to you, of course... But, for more of an Arthurian feel, the mounted knightly types should be in at least partial plate (which if Arthur were real, they wouldn't have really worn plate, )
-Religions... Judging from your list of deities/devils, I would suggest the entire World recognize a single pantheon, but each house/nation/city or whatever would worship whichever particular one they felt more strongly about. This can create some sectarian differences for your story. without coming across too much as a Christians vs. Jews vs. Muslims sort of thing (as in, all three worship the "same" God... just the others worship him/her wrong).. Perhaps nations that don't carry a common language (if there is a big difference there) could have a different name for different deities (Ares/Mars, Njord/Neptune/Poseidon, etc) but the symbols remain relatively similar allowing merchants and travelers the ability to pray to their preferred deity without too much difficulty.
hmmm interesting. but yeah, it would be cool to have only that one similarity in with GOT, where the armor proudly display's its house. Or have it so it is color coated so you could identify someone from the look of their armor.
Their Region Meroth they are in is hilly, mountainous, it has rivers and plains. It is a wealthy land compared to most. But its king is weak and the strongest House. House Taros is the defacto leader of Meroth. But most of the houses severely dislike House Taros.
I will add that idea for the druids though. I actually made a game using their runestones. So now the runestones are just used for games instead of luck.
So I hope I do not insult anyone when I make certain characters the way they are.
Yeah, stick with a single pantheon and divvy it up between the houses. A House that live in the plains may prize the god/ess of Farming and Fertility while the House from the mountains praises the god of metal and stone above the others. Could lead to some nice inter-faction versions of 'my god's better than yours!'
An idea for the Runestones, if they're used for games, is to maybe add a 'smoke and mirrors' aspect to them. ie. They can do real magic ect, but they also make a living as 'fortune tellers' and 'psychics' but it's all really made up. So they know it's all nonsense, but convince others it's real to earn their keep.
Paradigm wrote: Yeah, stick with a single pantheon and divvy it up between the houses. A House that live in the plains may prize the god/ess of Farming and Fertility while the House from the mountains praises the god of metal and stone above the others. Could lead to some nice inter-faction versions of 'my god's better than yours!'
An idea for the Runestones, if they're used for games, is to maybe add a 'smoke and mirrors' aspect to them. ie. They can do real magic ect, but they also make a living as 'fortune tellers' and 'psychics' but it's all really made up. So they know it's all nonsense, but convince others it's real to earn their keep.
Interesting. I would like to see that put in for my book. I would add some ideas to it, but the main use of it is suppose to be kind of a joke to them. There might be people who use the stones for certain extraneous things as you have suggested.
And yeah. I might do that and have some secular houses, who really don't care about gods.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here are some maps and such if you guys are interested in taking a look
Western Side
Spoiler:
Eastern Side
Spoiler:
World of Or
Spoiler:
These are rough drafts and I will try to make it on a computer program over time. I might do something special.
trexmeyer wrote: Comes across as being a strong carbon copy of Game of Thrones to be completely honest.
Its an early draft. It will slowly come to something of its own when I have gone through it. I come up with an idea and use elements from other stories, and slowly develop it into something else. Over time they will become something very different.
Currently the people that follow them follow them not because of their house, but because of debt, who they owe a favor, who is the most trustworthy. There are not other castles, the major houses have castles and thats about it. The rest is villages, towns, and cities. Anyone carrying the title lord is not very common. Sir is common, it just means you are apart of the Knighthood of Meroth, (they are the elite of Meroth's Military. When a single house is invaded the entire kingdom acts as one, all houses come together to fight with each other side by side. After the threat is dealt with they come back together. Think of the greek city states but owned a much larger amount of land. The land in Meroth constantly fluctuates between lords.)
Its very much a creation of my own. The idea may be similar but there are lots of differences. Which I will get to soon.
trexmeyer wrote: Comes across as being a strong carbon copy of Game of Thrones to be completely honest.
I agree here... One thing that could separate you some would be having the current king, since he's weak, be an absolute prudish puritan type... Spends all his time, and what fortune the family did have on religious pursuits as opposed to wine/women.
trexmeyer wrote: Comes across as being a strong carbon copy of Game of Thrones to be completely honest.
I agree here... One thing that could separate you some would be having the current king, since he's weak, be an absolute prudish puritan type... Spends all his time, and what fortune the family did have on religious pursuits as opposed to wine/women.
He's more of the I don't care type. The First chapter, You find out no one actually follows the king, he's kind of just there. No one wants to be king of Meroth. Its more of a figure head in the world. As the lords do all of the work.
But yeah I will take that into consideration.
AS currently I am just starting to write the world. And I have the houses merely as just there, they are a cool addition but not the main focus of the entire story.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Updated first page:
Currently figuring out plot lines, Character details, etc.
Much like Feudal France actually. The king has almost no real power, its little more than a fancy title and everyone knows it.
As for population, it depends.
You should consider food supply when determining population. What areas have the most food resources, and remember that Arable land is going to be a hot commodity and point of contention among the nobles.
Flood pains are where you'd have the most fertile farmland, and any place along rivers. Areas which are normally dry but water can be easily diverted would also be areas of intense food production. Also consider mountains and their rain shadows.
Looking at your maps, it appears that Morbin, Lorish, and Alens on the western map and the area of Verus on the Eastern side would be the most fertile.
Meroth itself actually seems like it would be a fairly arid place given the placement of the mountains. The entire kingdom would be in the rainshadow of the various mountain ranges, unless the prevailing winds come from the south. Which would require that the southern forests around Taeld be at lower elevations than the northern areas.
Central Meroth does have that large river flowing down to that bay. The areas around that would have greater farmland, and thus population.
Grey Templar wrote: Much like Feudal France actually. The king has almost no real power, its little more than a fancy title and everyone knows it.
As for population, it depends.
You should consider food supply when determining population. What areas have the most food resources, and remember that Arable land is going to be a hot commodity and point of contention among the nobles.
Flood pains are where you'd have the most fertile farmland, and any place along rivers. Areas which are normally dry but water can be easily diverted would also be areas of intense food production. Also consider mountains and their rain shadows.
Looking at your maps, it appears that Morbin, Lorish, and Alens on the western map and the area of Verus on the Eastern side would be the most fertile.
Meroth itself actually seems like it would be a fairly arid place given the placement of the mountains. The entire kingdom would be in the rainshadow of the various mountain ranges, unless the prevailing winds come from the south. Which would require that the southern forests around Taeld be at lower elevations than the northern areas.
Central Meroth does have that large river flowing down to that bay. The areas around that would have greater farmland, and thus population.
Yep basically how I planned it out to be. As the cold air comes from the south, and the warm air comes from the east and the north, The western half is more arid than the eastern half. The Eastern half has more forests and lush places.
But I decided the population was around a million.
The major houses all have access to plains and river systems.
And yeah the mountains were actually a mistake they were suppose to be on the other side and act as a natural border between it and the western side of the continent.
Keep in mind that at its absolute peak, ancient Rome was home to about 1,000,000 people and they had to port in food from Egypt, to feed the city. The typical ancient city could probably only support 100,000 tops. In the middle ages London was a city at 95,000.
Ancient China had a large population as a region. 57,000,000 during the Han Dynasty's peak (by the start of the Jin Dynasty that number was as low as 14,000,000 from a century of war and famine). In ancient times, a huge population could sustain itself with a capable agricultural infrastructure. One hiccup though, and that population drops like a rock. Much of the population decline during the Three Kingdoms era wasn't just starvation or war either. No food? High chance of getting pillaged? People tended to move on out to somewhere with more food and less pillaging China did not recover from this until the Tang Dynasty 300 years later!
Food for thought Such drastic losses in population and the struggles of feeding an overbearing population tends to shape cultures.
I thought it was too large, and too big of a scope, but it was mainly to capitalize on the fact that very few fantasy kingdoms had that big of a scope.
Anyway thanks for the feedback.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: Keep in mind that at its absolute peak, ancient Rome was home to about 1,000,000 people and they had to port in food from Egypt, to feed the city. The typical ancient city could probably only support 100,000 tops. In the middle ages London was a city at 95,000.
Ancient China had a large population as a region. 57,000,000 during the Han Dynasty's peak (by the start of the Jin Dynasty that number was as low as 14,000,000 from a century of war and famine). In ancient times, a huge population could sustain itself with a capable agricultural infrastructure. One hiccup though, and that population drops like a rock. Much of the population decline during the Three Kingdoms era wasn't just starvation or war either. No food? High chance of getting pillaged? People tended to move on out to somewhere with more food and less pillaging China did not recover from this until the Tang Dynasty 300 years later!
Food for thought Such drastic losses in population and the struggles of feeding an overbearing population tends to shape cultures.
interesting. I will look into it. But ever since this right before the renniassance and there is no development of gunpowder on the planet except for a single place. (Glasgith are known to have warriors made out of pure steel and are run by powerful steam engines)
If we are assuming a thousand years have passed since a cataclysmic event, we could assume that things have pretty much recovered at that point.
So you could have a much larger population in Meroth, if they had a source of food.
Remember in mild areas you could have several harvests a year, and in sufficiently temperate areas you could theoretically have continuous harvesting of various crops(using rotations)
The biggest limitation with food isn't producing it, its transporting it. Especially before artificial refrigeration. Most people's diet would consist of grains(which are easily stored) and any locally produced vegetables. The only food suitable for long distance transport would be grains, preserved foods, and livestock transported while its alive.
So in the off-season, people would eat mostly grains, a little salted meat, and possibly fish(year-round if near a suitable body of water that doesn't freeze)
Nutrition will also have a direct effect on the people in the local area. People with a diet higher in protein will be taller and more heavily muscled(but populations will be lower) while agrarian based societies will have more people but because they have less protein they'll be shorter. Calcium in the diet also will have an effect(how much dairy is available)
If we are assuming a thousand years have passed since a cataclysmic event, we could assume that things have pretty much recovered at that point.
So you could have a much larger population in Meroth, if they had a source of food.
Remember in mild areas you could have several harvests a year, and in sufficiently temperate areas you could theoretically have continuous harvesting of various crops(using rotations)
The biggest limitation with food isn't producing it, its transporting it. Especially before artificial refrigeration. Most people's diet would consist of grains(which are easily stored) and any locally produced vegetables. The only food suitable for long distance transport would be grains, preserved foods, and livestock transported while its alive.
So in the off-season, people would eat mostly grains, a little salted meat, and possibly fish(year-round if near a suitable body of water that doesn't freeze)
Nutrition will also have a direct effect on the people in the local area. People with a diet higher in protein will be taller and more heavily muscled(but populations will be lower) while agrarian based societies will have more people but because they have less protein they'll be shorter. Calcium in the diet also will have an effect(how much dairy is available)
They can still see ruins of the ancient society, and many of the world is built on the remains of the old world.
And I will look at that. And see what part produces more and what doesn't.
But I will continue to think of a way to use a borderline personality character. Actually I have a question about this how would I write a borderline personality person?
And I still have unanswered questions currently are....
Would elaborating on more of the history help me write the book better?
How are the houses? (There are more of them, but these are the major players) Should I expand on it? Should I add to it?
How is my description of the Revenants (on this page)?
Should I add creatures into the stories? So I progress through and show the world and what is going on.
Should the book be more about the Revenants or the Houses? Or should the Revenants be the big bad guys in the end? (I am struggling as currently the big bad guys are the Revenants and they play a more active part as the book progresses, but early on they play very little of a party..)
Also how big of a role should magic be? (Currently the entirety of the Western Continent Magic is widely used, but the eastern continent magic is almost non existent)
Should magic be very powerful and dangerous?
Should I have Mercenary Forces to add variety to the houses?
Should the main Character be active in the houses, or should he be off on his own trying to train for an upcoming war? Or should I focus on his older sister who is the Defacto Leader, after Wymond leaves to gather his man at arms?
If you guys could tell me what you think, that would help me out a bunch. As I plan on starting on my 40k lore. By kicking the restart button.
To be honest, most of those things sound like questions only you can answer. You know the plot and know the setting and the characters, so you know better than us what needs elaborating on.
In general, though, as I appreciate the above is probably unhelpful, it's worth building the world as much as you can, even if most of that doesn't make it into the book. Look at Tolkien. There's far more to Middle Earth than ever made it into the novels themselves, but all of it helped shape the world in which the stories take place. So I say do as much as you can to set up the world, even if you don't use half of it. Having a clear idea where/what/who/why things are will help with the writing, even just at the level of being able to 'see' where you're going more clearly.
Paradigm wrote: To be honest, most of those things sound like questions only you can answer. You know the plot and know the setting and the characters, so you know better than us what needs elaborating on.
In general, though, as I appreciate the above is probably unhelpful, it's worth building the world as much as you can, even if most of that doesn't make it into the book. Look at Tolkien. There's far more to Middle Earth than ever made it into the novels themselves, but all of it helped shape the world in which the stories take place. So I say do as much as you can to set up the world, even if you don't use half of it. Having a clear idea where/what/who/why things are will help with the writing, even just at the level of being able to 'see' where you're going more clearly.
Oh yeah there are tons of things going on that I will never ever talk about sadly.
But Some of them I need readers to prove to me that my work is well readable.
As rule of thumb a population of a quarter of a million or more can make a full medieval feudal kingdom, any less and you are looking at an extended city state. Any empire with a population over thirty million or so is truly vast.
However you may need to be asking the right questions.
- How suitable is Meroth for agriculture?
- What agricultural technology do they have? Do they have water or wind mills, do they have magic assisted mills?
- Is society feudal?
- Is the land plague or war racked?
All in all the population is not too relevant, The French outnumbered the English about five to one during their wars, and were defending territory against an opponent whose main power base was overseas. it did not matter as the peasantry did not generally fight. What really matters are the size of cities and the number of knights you have, also the size of the merchant and priestly castes.
Would elaborating on more of the history help me write the book better?
Most successful fantasy or SF writers create copious notes and short form histories before handlign the main story. It will help for consistency.
As a rule of thumb the first thing you should start with is the religion, gods, creation myth and origin stories.
Then look at broad histories of the various states, human migrations etc.
This deserves some elaboration.
1. First do your origin myth and write up your theology. You could choose to have no gods, a single god, a pantheon or myriad gods.
2. Next look at the orgins of humans and any other races. Where did they come from both in actuality and where people think they came from.
3. Then plot out the broad histories of your map, start with the earliest empires and work forwards. If the ancient empires get too many and too irrelevant just number them, you can name them later. This helps as it will give indication of where there will be ancient ruins and how old they are.
4. When you get to the founding of the first existing realm you have moved from ancient history to history. From this point on you need a bit more detail.
5. When you get to the founding of the main realms of your storyline such as Meroth you need even more detail. Make up some old folk tales, just reuse real ones, most human societies do either by plagiarism or simply because noteworthy events often occur once or more than once per civilisation. For example there are numerous real independent folk tales which all carry the same plot as 'the boy who cried wolf'.
6. Finally when you get to the last three generations you have modern history. This is important also from here on in look at individual rulers and their personalities in greater detail, peoples memories go back this far, and little further. Though major events, mostly negative ones can be remembered far longer.
At the end of this it will all flow, the history will dictate your politics. Someone of a specific race or ruler will react to people of differing backgrounds based on historical ties, positive and negative. Truly noteworthy people overcome these limitation.
How are the houses? (There are more of them, but these are the major players) Should I expand on it? Should I add to it?
Generic fantasy, nothing special. While people can and will say its a Game of Thrones knockoff medieval fantasy is no less your than GRRMartins.
Take a good look at your heraldry though, you need not follow the rules of heraldry but it helps to be aware of them as most had practical origins.
A house sigil needs to be simple enough to fit on noble shields and commoners alike. So the more important the house the simper the sigil, or the house would have a simpler division of a sigil.
House Justine's sigil is simple enough, peasant militia would paint a simple cross on a blue/black shield (assuming your stars are against a night.
House Litor's sigil is more difficult. Dop you have perspective art? As yopur description assumes so, medieval art would show say a wolf rampant under a crescent moon or other. The 'classic' fantasy image of the wolf and moon sillouette is not only done to death but it wouldnt fit the mindset of a medieval artist.
Thats not the main problem though, medieval heraldry is there for field recognition and is therefore stylised, the rules of heraldry dictate which colours go on which so that the symbols are visible from shields and standards.
As fro House Moric how do you represent this sigil outside of a tower shield, such as on a pennant? A flaming sword probably wants a dark background which would represent a 'tower shield'.
You don't have to follow any of the rules of heraldry but its pays to look at them. Also take into account that if houses merge sigils might change, in some backgrounds a new sigil is chosen, in others the shield is divided and bnoth house sigiols are incorporated. If the latter occurs then heraldry may in time get quite messy, but messy quarters abnd requarttered heraldry is the sign of a nobility more interested in geneological iconography than field recognition, such as modern European nobility.
Most houses have a simpler flag to fall back on for actual use
How is my description of the Revenants (on this page)?
Should I add creatures into the stories? So I progress through and show the world and what is going on.
Should the book be more about the Revenants or the Houses? Or should the Revenants be the big bad guys in the end? (I am struggling as currently the big bad guys are the Revenants and they play a more active part as the book progresses, but early on they play very little of a party..)
Didnt find it.
Also how big of a role should magic be? (Currently the entirety of the Western Continent Magic is widely used, but the eastern continent magic is almost non existent)
Make a choice, its common rare or very rare.
COMMON If its common then it becomes part of the economy, in fact it will be inseparable from the economy. A spell to sharpen swords is useful, but the same spell will be of greater use sharpening ploughs.
Most magicians will try to find work in communications, business
Other than the Harry Potter series this side of magic is largely overlooked, the most important magic will be that that makes life easier or gains revenue.
Magical non proliferation (though not by that name!) will be an important issue.
RARE If rare wizards are either hunted, or politicised. Rare magic usually indicates that magic is a gift that most simply have absolutely no talent in, or that the availability of sxources of magical power are poorly distributed.
If the former finding magically gifted people will be important work, either to put them to death or to recruit them as assets, dependent on the culture and politics of the society involved.
In the latter case magic generating items/zones/nodes/faith will be jealously horded, this setting has more liberty for the plot and implies that anyone in the know can qwork a tiny amount of magic, but only those with access to inner power can gain true might.
VERY RARE Both above conditions, it would make sense to assume that assassination will be a common ploy for dealing with gifted rivals, and wars may be fought over sources of magic power. This all depends on how transferable power is.
Should magic be very powerful and dangerous?
Yes, but avoid D&D like spell lists. Generic fantasy RPG spells have their place but should be rare or limited.
Please note that the greatest asset of a court wizard is his wise counsel. This might not apply if your magic system is purely based on gift and some precocious teen happens to be the most uber mage.
As for the spells themselves, in medival society life is cheap, but people tended to have a high regard for their souls. A wizards power to curse or damn would be far more frightening than anything else they could cast. This fear may permeatve even if the wizards actually lack that ability.
You will have to decide what influence faith has on magic.
Also note that its much easier to cast a death spell than a fireball in terms of magical mechanics.
Raising the dead should be rare or restricted, and you should have an answer for what the raised person experienced while dead, such answers will have a large effect on religion.
Also look at how much healing is available.
Can magic cure plagues? For a lucky storied individua? for those who can afford it, or have the faith? for all?
Note that many minor and innocuous spells are plot enders. Firerballs may look impressive but the ability to separate truth from falsehood is invaluable, so long as the magician can be themselves entrusted.
Also magic effects everything else.
Got telepathy, teleportation, dream messaging etc? Then you have a medieval society with at least one foot in the information age.
Got fireballs and lighting bolts? Then infantry combat will be 20th century, trench warfare rather than massed ranks.
Got charm or illusion spells? Even if rare they will completely change society, the paranoia, the fear... You can do far more damage by deceiving a group of people than you can by fireballing them.
You have to think of limiters to all of these, and wizards are rare is not a good one. For a start they crop up more often than perople assume unless magic is truly mythic. Magic must haver consequences and limitations,. some of limitations should be commonplace.
Should I have Mercenary Forces to add variety to the houses?
Yes. Mercenraiers are needed in any pre industrial society, unless you are fighting a holy war and can recruit the populace en masse. Noble houses tended to have small livery armies because there is a practical limit to the number of personal retainers a noble can have, barbarian hordes are an exception to this.
Nobles can recruit peasants but that tends not to be a good idea, it hurts the economiy, and raises troops of dubiouis value and loyalty. Better to have aschultz or fyrd system where a village has a token armsman or two who can be called by the lord/king. This may not be the case in a feudal society as a fuiekldal as opposed to a dark age political system is more unforgiving. Howeever feudalism instead provides knights, who are a bit like the fyrd really, except at a different and distinct social strata.
All in all between the nobles retinue, the knights and retainers thay can call upon masy not be enough and usually is not. So mercenaries are hired.
Be aware of the concept of a pensioner. We today think of pensioners as retired old people, in medieval times there was no pension, old people starved worked until they dropped or had family to look after them. To a person who had a 'pension' that bypassed that worry. Pensions were given out sparingly as it commited a person to life long care of the recipient, only the richest lords, could issue pensions, normally only kings. Though religious groups would have an equivalent Some pensioners were administrators, but most were elite warriors.
Meroth will have pensioners, they may not be known by that name but the concerpt will be there. Because the questions will have been asked. Usually along the lines of 'I am mighyy but have no family, what happens to me when I am old and can no longer wield my axe'.
Should the main Character be active in the houses, or should he be off on his own trying to train for an upcoming war? Or should I focus on his older sister who is the Defacto Leader, after Wymond leaves to gather his man at arms?
Nobles will alwys be active. Unless your noble house is really fractious and vicious and is totally unscrupulous and self destructive. Please note that noble houses that stab each other in the back dont actually last long. Some houses have that rfep but in acrtuallity will have a semblance of house loyalty. This need not apply in Orientalism (which historically means arabs not chinese). Arabian nights type backgrounds or those that follow that culture may indeed be totally ruthless brother against brother, but then you wont have noble houses just just have individual nobles and lineages. Noble lineage doesnt mean much beyond eligibility, and eligibility comes from proving you are part of the race, not special lineage from any particular line.
These societies can be more dynamic and tend to lead to more competent leadership than the European or Japanese pattern noble dynasty.
So basically if you have 'houses' then even in cases like the Borgias you will have an us and them mentality. There may be infighting, but the house is united against the inside.
Your main character will have the 'trust' of the suister, betrayal can happen but is totally frowned upon by all houses as a house divided cannot stand. As a rule once somoene is in power in the house the rest follow or at least get out of the way and remain loyal. Any other option leads to ruin. Noble houses work well because they are a geneoklogical obligation, if the nobles bicker and the house loses then generations of progress is dfor nothing, so the first priority of a noble will be to maintain the power of the house.
This means that even if the characters are evil, main character and older sister will to some extent have each others back. This has to be as other rival houses are always looking for the advantage. The more established the noble system the stronger this bond will be. If the noble houses are components of a larger realm or empire then the system will denegrate into decadence, but individual noble houses in rivalry will remain strong.
Also note that unless there is a pressing reason to do so if a house has a weak ruler it will only be taken advantage of up to a point, the house itself and its core lands will remain, otherb houses will ensure this, because human weakness is inevitable over time and next generation it might be their turn. Also a rival house is good marriage stock and is an extra banner to raise if a barbarian horde threatens them all. Even if dynastic nobles are trying to kill each other over generations they will have some rules and cross loyalty at an elementary level in order to preserve the dynastic system.
Your realms may and will indeed vary, but if you look at the realpolitic you have to make one of three choices.
- Nobles try anything to get ahead, this may indeed involved backstabbing brothers. Lands are ruled by rutheless competent men, its are to have an ineffictive ruler because the weak do not survive.
Dynastic houses are rare as no house lasts longer than its first weak ruler, historically this means that non retainer lords last about three generations before the house is extinguised and replaced. (Middle eastern system)
- Nobles are in it for the long term, individuals can be very greedy, but education, culture history and all the other houses will expeunge the one who breaks the way of life. Dynastic houses going back centuries thrive, they are bitter rivals but only press each other up to a point. All or almost all are linked by blood somewhere. (Northern European system)
- Blends the two, and makes for very interesting politics. Such a blending can only really work if you diversify power, normally to city states, and external threat to unify if needed and a very strong central religion or other permenant institution that can survive the short term views of the nobility. (Southern European system)
How are the maps? Should I use a program to make them more accurate? (No duh I will when the book is ready to be released)
Avoid the classic fantasy authors mistake of making the map to fit the page.
GRRMartin made that mistake with Westeros and it shows. Tolkien made beautiful maps but the maps did not truly fit the page, it was less packaged as a result even if the story covered the map and little beyond it.
Also do the topography and climatology first then add the political borders, exceptions for realms that 'grow' their own mountains like Mordor.
Start with coastline, mountains rivers and forests, hills are important but hills can be anywhere, mountains ad rivers have a general pattern to them. One trick is to take a real topographical map or two and then tweak it, if you take a real map remove obvious recognisable features and dont show them north side up you can have a fantasy map that makes sense and wont be recognised for what it is.
Its a good exercise. Take say the Amazon basin, rescale it so that its the size of France, make it from north-south and change the coastline. Chop and change it a bit so that while it makes geographical sense its lo longer Brazil in any form, change the climate.
Alternately download one of the geological sims and run it until you get a continent you like.
I'll go over my things and check it over. It is rough draft form still and I still have much work to do.
I still have a few projects to finish and to complete.
Agreed. Litor's wolf idea is done to death. I might make it a red hawk with two heads. (an Aquillia) As I have yet to see that as a house symbol anywhere.
The other houses that are represented by weapons are just a throw away to think of a concept idea. Such as building the houses to be unique from each other house.
Like House Thaitium and its house sigil. They are still a work in progress.
House Thatium is named after a metal. So I might just make it another symbol such as a smith's hammer.
The maps bit is quite interesting, I originally drew the maps on a napkin, to show my friend what I think the world would like. Then I transfered it onto a notecard, then blew it up on a notebook paper. And yes you are completely correct on the map bit.
My world is based on Pangea. As there is very little tectonitics and movement on their planet. I mean there is more than one primary continent.
But yeah I'll get on it. ANd a few pages back I gave a brief description in one my short blurbs
You can collapse the map down to a fraction of the original size (telescoping in, making all realms smaller) and still keep pretty much the same story.
There is something to be said for epic tales featuring vast numbers, but in most settings ten thousand and a million are similar. A plot to save the world is still high plot whether the known world has a population of bilions or of low millions. Downsizing also helps in other ways, as maps are smaller journey times are cut, so plot events in 'distant' places that need to interact can more easily do so. If you want distance add a large desert or some high mountain ranges, they will cut communications and act as barriers.
Your continent can become a big island with the same effect, in fact many of the better fantasy worlds when scaled out properly are not too big. You can have a powerful vibrant kingdom the size of New Jersey, m any ancient kingdoms were smaller than this, as were many European realms.
Larger realms invoke larger plots, but its just numerically larger, the manner of the plot is the same, however smaller forces means more characterisation, a chance to zoom in, and above all means that a hero may be less and yet accomplish more.
Many of the better authors keep the numbers low, even at the expense of making lands empty. Middle Earth and Narnia are both cases in point. Smaller numbers also make more sense a lot of the time, most medival armies were rather small, and a few hundred men could change the fate of much of Europe.
Orlanth wrote: Frankly I always think it pays to downsize.
You can collapse the map down to a fraction of the original size (telescoping in, making all realms smaller) and still keep pretty much the same story.
There is something to be said for epic tales featuring vast numbers, but in most settings ten thousand and a million are similar. A plot to save the world is still high plot whether the known world has a population of bilions or of low millions. Downsizing also helps in other ways, as maps are smaller journey times are cut, so plot events in 'distant' places that need to interact can more easily do so. If you want distance add a large desert or some high mountain ranges, they will cut communications and act as barriers.
Your continent can become a big island with the same effect, in fact many of the better fantasy worlds when scaled out properly are not too big. You can have a powerful vibrant kingdom the size of New Jersey, m any ancient kingdoms were smaller than this, as were many European realms.
Larger realms invoke larger plots, but its just numerically larger, the manner of the plot is the same, however smaller forces means more characterisation, a chance to zoom in, and above all means that a hero may be less and yet accomplish more.
Many of the better authors keep the numbers low, even at the expense of making lands empty. Middle Earth and Narnia are both cases in point. Smaller numbers also make more sense a lot of the time, most medival armies were rather small, and a few hundred men could change the fate of much of Europe.
The largest battle in the book, that I have drafted thus far was 10,000 vs 15,000~.
There is no massive army in the book. Except if you count the revenants, whose numbers are literally meant to be endless (You know having necromancers helps). I mean as the book goes on the battles become less extravagant and more brutal to the point. As the battle harden core of the army that the character is in, becomes less and less in number. And things become a little bit more desperate. I actually wasn't planning on making a massive army battle. The final battle and this is not a spoiler, is 4,000 men and women vs 12,000~ Revenants and others. And no I will not elaborate on who wins, because in the end it will be desperate, and who knows who will win.
I mean the continent does not stretch from polar ice cap to another. Its close but no cigars, But I will take your thoughts into consideration as I continue to write my geographical maps and how big the world actually is.
The battles are absolutely brutal though, as I have studied military history of the crusades and found that the smaller forces usually did the best. I.E. Second crusade Saladin vs the New King (The French one), and how Saladin just maneuvered near a river and slowly picked off the crusaders because they wanted to get access to the river. Saladin won due to his genius and due to the fact his riders constantly annoyed
In this world Maneuvers and formations help in war. As would magic. But I am still deciding the frequency of it. But the Eastern half has little to no magic while the western half has an abundance of it. But it is seen with suspicion and seen as evil by the ignorant (Which makes up most of the worlds population).
And yeah good idea making the world smaller. But I will probably make it to the degree of the size of the north american continent which was the original idea.
But the world is suppose to be big. And different looking than most worlds. With a giant kingdom in the middle of country seperating the two sides.
The largest battle in the book, that I have drafted thus far was 10,000 vs 15,000~.
There is no massive army in the book.
An army of ten thousand is very large, its larger than almost any army the Nordic peoples raised, and reasonably large for continental Europe.
Dark Age armies tended to be in the low thousands, High Medieval armies thousands to low tens of thousands
Except if you count the revenants, whose numbers are literally meant to be endless (You know having necromancers helps). I mean as the book goes on the battles become less extravagant and more brutal to the point. As the battle harden core of the army that the character is in, becomes less and less in number. And things become a little bit more desperate. I actually wasn't planning on making a massive army battle. The final battle and this is not a spoiler, is 4,000 men and women vs 12,000~ Revenants and others. And no I will not elaborate on who wins, because in the end it will be desperate, and who knows who will win.
I mean the continent does not stretch from polar ice cap to another. Its close but no cigars, But I will take your thoughts into consideration as I continue to write my geographical maps and how big the world actually is.
If you want cold to hot to cold for a plot that ranges from the ice to the hot sands you could consider high mountains.
In this world Maneuvers and formations help in war. As would magic. But I am still deciding the frequency of it. But the Eastern half has little to no magic while the western half has an abundance of it. But it is seen with suspicion and seen as evil by the ignorant (Which makes up most of the worlds population).
Have you worked out why magic is concentrated in the west, you need not explain the answer fully in the book, so long as the explanation exists. Ley lines are are good answer, education is not. Powerful wizards would migrate east.
And yeah good idea making the world smaller. But I will probably make it to the degree of the size of the north american continent which was the original idea.
But the world is suppose to be big. And different looking than most worlds. With a giant kingdom in the middle of country separating the two sides.
So your main continent has a usable land mass the size of Australia then? That would certainly do, you could fit many medieval empires in an island-continent that size. To the people living in it the land is vast. You can downsize further by making more parts uninhabitable by civilised man, by mountains and deserts etc.
Bromsy wrote: Why would people with little to no magic not be conquered by people with significant magic? It would seem to be an insurmountable advantage.
The Eastern half seems to have no access to magic. And those who had magic, nolonger have magic in the eastern half.
I've explained why in the book there is no magic in the eastern half. That was was one of the major reasons I went that far.
Bromsy wrote: Why would people with little to no magic not be conquered by people with significant magic? It would seem to be an insurmountable advantage.
The Eastern half seems to have no access to magic. And those who had magic, nolonger have magic in the eastern half.
I've explained why in the book there is no magic in the eastern half. That was was one of the major reasons I went that far.
This could work well, having magic access zonal is an underexplored part of fantasy and causes changes in dynamics and tactics. You could have a selectively high magic setting this way.
Bromsy wrote: Why would people with little to no magic not be conquered by people with significant magic? It would seem to be an insurmountable advantage.
The Eastern half seems to have no access to magic. And those who had magic, nolonger have magic in the eastern half.
I've explained why in the book there is no magic in the eastern half. That was was one of the major reasons I went that far.
This could work well, having magic access zonal is an underexplored part of fantasy and causes changes in dynamics and tactics. You could have a selectively high magic setting this way.
Yeah. I thought about it very hard if thats what I really want.
And yezah, it is a very good idea as it has never been explored before.
Bromsy wrote: Why would people with little to no magic not be conquered by people with significant magic? It would seem to be an insurmountable advantage.
The Eastern half seems to have no access to magic. And those who had magic, nolonger have magic in the eastern half.
I've explained why in the book there is no magic in the eastern half. That was was one of the major reasons I went that far.
This could work well, having magic access zonal is an underexplored part of fantasy and causes changes in dynamics and tactics. You could have a selectively high magic setting this way.
Yeah. I thought about it very hard if thats what I really want.
And yezah, it is a very good idea as it has never been explored before.
Perhaps you could also take a bit of a 40k Ork system into it?? By this I mean that, if you're going for regional magic power then perhaps at some point in the distant path magic DID cease to exist, but it remained so in the West because the people believed it did. Ergo, when a Western army goes east, wizards magic diminishes because there are fewer people who "believe" that magic works.
Bromsy wrote: Why would people with little to no magic not be conquered by people with significant magic? It would seem to be an insurmountable advantage.
The Eastern half seems to have no access to magic. And those who had magic, nolonger have magic in the eastern half.
I've explained why in the book there is no magic in the eastern half. That was was one of the major reasons I went that far.
This could work well, having magic access zonal is an underexplored part of fantasy and causes changes in dynamics and tactics. You could have a selectively high magic setting this way.
Yeah. I thought about it very hard if thats what I really want.
And yezah, it is a very good idea as it has never been explored before.
Perhaps you could also take a bit of a 40k Ork system into it?? By this I mean that, if you're going for regional magic power then perhaps at some point in the distant path magic DID cease to exist, but it remained so in the West because the people believed it did. Ergo, when a Western army goes east, wizards magic diminishes because there are fewer people who "believe" that magic works.
Or I could leave it open ended, and multiple people saying why magic doesn't exist. Such is the problem with a medevil society. Facts usually aren't correct.
There maybe a just cause as to why, and some may claim to have caused the disruption in magic but it simply is that way.
Bromsy wrote: Why would people with little to no magic not be conquered by people with significant magic? It would seem to be an insurmountable advantage.
The Eastern half seems to have no access to magic. And those who had magic, nolonger have magic in the eastern half.
I've explained why in the book there is no magic in the eastern half. That was was one of the major reasons I went that far.
This could work well, having magic access zonal is an underexplored part of fantasy and causes changes in dynamics and tactics. You could have a selectively high magic setting this way.
Yeah. I thought about it very hard if thats what I really want.
And yezah, it is a very good idea as it has never been explored before.
It has, just not often enough IMHO. It occurs in several published works already. And has at least one recurring theme in classic fantasy literature, the mythos of the faerie forest.
In my own IP there is 'magic zoning', but I will keep to myself exactly how.
Or I could leave it open ended, and multiple people saying why magic doesn't exist. Such is the problem with a medevil society. Facts usually aren't correct.
There maybe a just cause as to why, and some may claim to have caused the disruption in magic but it simply is that way.
Generally a bad idea to not have an explanation, though you need not explain, and if you do the explanation may be incorrect or contradictive.
.
Take two lines of thought, the Prepared method was to explain everything in minuitae, to himself and allow the stories to develop from that. Examples Middle Earth, Narnia (mostly) Battletech
The Open method is to leave things unexplained to allow plot hooks to add stuff onto later. Examples 40K, Star Trek, Star Wars
The latter invite really bizarre and nonsensical design decisions later, admittedly GW designers cant hold a candle to Tolkien, but they set themselves up to fail.
The former method is far rarer because it requires more creative discipline but is much stronger and consistent. Battletech is a soap opera with bad designers but was bult on solid plot foundations, which means it survived well.
Or I could leave it open ended, and multiple people saying why magic doesn't exist. Such is the problem with a medevil society. Facts usually aren't correct.
There maybe a just cause as to why, and some may claim to have caused the disruption in magic but it simply is that way.
Agreed... I guess what I'm saying is that you could have any number of characters explain the way that magic works any number of ways, and they all circle around some truth that "the more people believe in magic, the more powerful it is"
This was kind of a theme in the TV show, Carinvale... It's set in dustbowl America, and the world is on the brink from where science is "threatening" to engulf all belief in magic, or rather science is progressing at a rate at which people no longer believe that there's ANY magic (magic here being that wonder and awe of nature) left.
Bromsy wrote: Why would people with little to no magic not be conquered by people with significant magic? It would seem to be an insurmountable advantage.
The Eastern half seems to have no access to magic. And those who had magic, nolonger have magic in the eastern half.
I've explained why in the book there is no magic in the eastern half. That was was one of the major reasons I went that far.
This could work well, having magic access zonal is an underexplored part of fantasy and causes changes in dynamics and tactics. You could have a selectively high magic setting this way.
Yeah. I thought about it very hard if thats what I really want.
And yezah, it is a very good idea as it has never been explored before.
It has, just not often enough IMHO. It occurs in several published works already. And has at least one recurring theme in classic fantasy literature, the mythos of the faerie forest.
In my own IP there is 'magic zoning', but I will keep to myself exactly how.
Or I could leave it open ended, and multiple people saying why magic doesn't exist. Such is the problem with a medevil society. Facts usually aren't correct. There maybe a just cause as to why, and some may claim to have caused the disruption in magic but it simply is that way.
Generally a bad idea to not have an explanation, though you need not explain, and if you do the explanation may be incorrect or contradictive. . Take two lines of thought, the Prepared method was to explain everything in minuitae, to himself and allow the stories to develop from that. Examples Middle Earth, Narnia (mostly) Battletech The Open method is to leave things unexplained to allow plot hooks to add stuff onto later. Examples 40K, Star Trek, Star Wars The latter invite really bizarre and nonsensical design decisions later, admittedly GW designers cant hold a candle to Tolkien, but they set themselves up to fail.
The former method is far rarer because it requires more creative discipline but is much stronger and consistent. Battletech is a soap opera with bad designers but was bult on solid plot foundations, which means it survived well.
So make characters with conflicting views and conflicting ideas of how the world works?
So I should write characters that explain magic that simply is. And have differing view points on the matter. Magic is quite powerful. But there are some that are exempt from this, because they do use magic, but something given to them.
Or I could leave it open ended, and multiple people saying why magic doesn't exist. Such is the problem with a medevil society. Facts usually aren't correct.
There maybe a just cause as to why, and some may claim to have caused the disruption in magic but it simply is that way.
Agreed... I guess what I'm saying is that you could have any number of characters explain the way that magic works any number of ways, and they all circle around some truth that "the more people believe in magic, the more powerful it is"
This was kind of a theme in the TV show, Carinvale... It's set in dustbowl America, and the world is on the brink from where science is "threatening" to engulf all belief in magic, or rather science is progressing at a rate at which people no longer believe that there's ANY magic (magic here being that wonder and awe of nature) left.
I like the idea, that central idea that they all believe in a certain thing and others believe in something else. Likea religious fanatic would believe a god did it. While the other reasonable people believe that people have to believe in it for to work. That magic only exists as long as belief exists.
Hey everyone I am currently working on certain things in my book mainly the starting of the problem in the first part of the book.
My questions are....
What would be reasonable for a lord to investigate a matter with his man at arms if he suspects something bad?
How does the name The Cult of the Newborn God sound? I currently have their colors as black and blue. And they are a rising cult that has been starting trouble. They are known for certain things and are a major cult.
How do these quotes sound "“Give him love or hate, and he’ll give you a war. There is no peace among men.”" "Everyone has an island to themselves, its up to us to build bridges to them." "You have only had the taste of it. Power is something that I can use to make you think you are in control of yourself. In truth if I had that power, I would control you.
No man should own the power of gods, for the mind is corrupted so easily by the idea of godhood, it is a venom that leeches away at the soul. A single taste of true power, my friend, is something you will never forget. And it will corrupt you beyond belief."
Should I have a special race unique to my world along with the Revenants?
What would be a disturbing creature?
What would the flora be like in a world where there is magic and what would one be like without? (The animals, the plants? I mean its a unique world, and the creatures aren't carbon copies of europe, it has its own flavor of creatures.)
The main thing is that there are creatures like yetis, goatmen, lucan, vampyr (Vampires that basically are really ugly and incredibly different from regular vampires, and what you think of vampires.)
I've started my third chapter, and as it starts to get militarized I have begun looking into military tactics and ideas from the renassiance.
Is five hundred man at arms and knights (a combined number) enough to quell a cult?
Would I call a forward force? A Vanguard or a Spearhead?
What should the naming conventions of Meroth be focused on? The Villains are based on Germanic names, the people of meroth are a mixed naming convention. Should I focus on a theme, or invent my own names?
What would be reasonable for a lord to investigate a matter with his man at arms if he suspects something bad?
A lord (depending on his actual level in a hierarchy of his peers), could be too important to bother with a large kingdom or fiefdom. He probably attends to personal matters on a daily basis, and then depending on priorities, addresses the local concerns either by holding court and issuing decrees and judgements from his place of power or having proxies deal with it for him (sheriffs for example).
I'd perhaps have the lord investigate the below issue. Perhaps the local head of the church has summoned the lord (and no lord wants to be on the bad side of the priesthood) and the lord accompanied by his trusty man at arms and a retinue of guards goes to the summons to hear out what is being talked about.
How does the name The Cult of the Newborn God sound? I currently have their colors as black and blue. And they are a rising cult that has been starting trouble. They are known for certain things and are a major cult.
Saying cult over and over again will get old fast. The Order of the Rising God, or Martyrs of the Newborn sounds better, but this is your novel and your final decision. As a faction, I'd say they have to have a reason for existing, and a reason why they are a growing threat and are attracting followers.
How do these quotes sound "“Give him love or hate, and he’ll give you a war. There is no peace among men.”"
"Bestow upon man love or hate, and he twists it to war. Peace is a forlorn concept to us mortals."
"Everyone has an island to themselves, its up to us to build bridges to them."
"Every man is an island alone, but together we can build bridges."
"You have only had the taste of it. Power is something that I can use to make you think you are in control of yourself. In truth if I had that power, I would control you."
Sounds good. It looks like a monologue from a character.
No man should own the power of gods, for the mind is corrupted so easily by the idea of godhood, it is a venom that leeches away at the soul. A single taste of true power, my friend, is something you will never forget. And it will corrupt you beyond belief."
A decent concept, and a long one at that.
Should I have a special race unique to my world along with the Revenants?
What makes a world unique is how you picture it. Not every fantasy setting requires unique creatures, but something different that stands out does make it unforgettable.
So I would strive to find something that works within your world.
What would be a disturbing creature?
To your world, what are the fears that haunt mankind? For the Wheel of Time cosmology, anything associated with the Dark One is taboo and scary.
Does your world have a bogeyman, or a race of creatures that hides in the dark recesses of the world, hardly ever communicating with other intelligent races?
What would the flora be like in a world where there is magic and what would one be like without? (The animals, the plants? I mean its a unique world, and the creatures aren't carbon copies of europe, it has its own flavor of creatures.)
Flora and fauna are what you imagine it to be. You will have forests and plains and farms. Cities will dot the civilized world and mountains and deserts to block progress. Do you want it to be extremely inhospitable or do you want it to be average, but with unique landscapes?
A land of magic will have more unusual things and places warped or tainted by magic gone wrong as well as land protected by magical interference.
The main thing is that there are creatures like yetis, goatmen, lucan, vampyr (Vampires that basically are really ugly and incredibly different from regular vampires, and what you think of vampires.)
I've started my third chapter, and as it starts to get militarized I have begun looking into military tactics and ideas from the renassiance.
Is five hundred man at arms and knights (a combined number) enough to quell a cult?
Five hundred men would require it to be raised from a considerable population. And how far advanced is the civilization? I would imagine a minor lord having a small contingent of armed men at the core and the rest conscripted from the local peasantry. How professional is this army?
Would I call a forward force? A Vanguard or a Spearhead?
Yes.
What should the naming conventions of Meroth be focused on? The Villains are based on Germanic names, the people of meroth are a mixed naming convention. Should I focus on a theme, or invent my own names?
Names based in reality with meaning have more force and intent. Shynansrj Aoldsgbngd does not sound very appetizing unless the intent is to conceive of a name so eccentric the idea is to convince the audience they are too foreign an entity to comprehend using their own knowledge base to form a connection.
Asherian Command wrote: Hey everyone I am currently working on certain things in my book mainly the starting of the problem in the first part of the book.
My questions are....
What would be reasonable for a lord to investigate a matter with his man at arms if he suspects something bad?
Please clarify this question.
In general though the relationship between lord and vassal is that of officer and soldier. The officer asks questions in a way that for other men os 'being nosy' and gets away with it, and demans answer.
A Lord can ask any question he damn well pleases.
How does the name The Cult of the Newborn God sound? I currently have their colors as black and blue. And they are a rising cult that has been starting trouble. They are known for certain things and are a major cult.
Sounds new, anything new and major is BIG trouble, not fringe trouble.
How do these quotes sound "“Give him love or hate, and he’ll give you a war. There is no peace among men.”" Ok, a bit nihilistic though. I suppose these are cult dogmas not general statements.
"Everyone has an island to themselves, its up to us to build bridges to them."
build bridges between them. - Unless you want to imply that bridges should connect only with the cult and nobody else. Thats very culty thinking.
"You have only had the taste of it. Power is something that I can use to make you think you are in control of yourself. In truth if I had that power, I would control you.
Needs work, it makes sense but is clumsily written.
No man should own the power of gods, for the mind is corrupted so easily by the idea of godhood, it is a venom that leeches away at the soul. A single taste of true power, my friend, is something you will never forget. And it will corrupt you beyond belief."
Good quote.
Should I have a special race unique to my world along with the Revenants?
Up to you, how many races do you have already?
What would be a disturbing creature?
One that you cant defend against, or takes away something of hidden value, or one that bypasses defences and kills from within.
First example, a spirit, against which sharp steel is useless.
Second example, a demon, which attacks the soul not the body
Third example, an invisible or teleporting assassin beast, which bypasses armed guards and preys on children.
What would the flora be like in a world where there is magic and what would one be like without? (The animals, the plants? I mean its a unique world, and the creatures aren't carbon copies of europe, it has its own flavor of creatures.)
This question is unanswerable, your imagination is your own. What do you envision, use that.
The main thing is that there are creatures like yetis, goatmen, lucan, vampyr (Vampires that basically are really ugly and incredibly different from regular vampires, and what you think of vampires.)
Standard fantasy fayre, vampyr could be disturbing if they fit the third example.
I've started my third chapter, and as it starts to get militarized I have begun looking into military tactics and ideas from the renassiance.
Is five hundred man at arms and knights (a combined number) enough to quell a cult?
No. It will take the temple easily, but isn't anything like enough to hunt down cultists after they scatter. Exception if the cultists are all gathered in one place for a ritual and they are surroundd and taken by surprise. Even so expect one or two survivors.
Would I call a forward force? A Vanguard or a Spearhead?
Either, both work.
What should the naming conventions of Meroth be focused on? The Villains are based on Germanic names, the people of meroth are a mixed naming convention. Should I focus on a theme, or invent my own names?
Invent your own names asnsd generate a theme, no harm in using name structures found on earth though.
WarOne wrote: Let me see if I can stab some of this...
What would be reasonable for a lord to investigate a matter with his man at arms if he suspects something bad?
A lord (depending on his actual level in a hierarchy of his peers), could be too important to bother with a large kingdom or fiefdom. He probably attends to personal matters on a daily basis, and then depending on priorities, addresses the local concerns either by holding court and issuing decrees and judgements from his place of power or having proxies deal with it for him (sheriffs for example).
I'd perhaps have the lord investigate the below issue. Perhaps the local head of the church has summoned the lord (and no lord wants to be on the bad side of the priesthood) and the lord accompanied by his trusty man at arms and a retinue of guards goes to the summons to hear out what is being talked about.
How does the name The Cult of the Newborn God sound? I currently have their colors as black and blue. And they are a rising cult that has been starting trouble. They are known for certain things and are a major cult.
Saying cult over and over again will get old fast. The Order of the Rising God, or Martyrs of the Newborn sounds better, but this is your novel and your final decision. As a faction, I'd say they have to have a reason for existing, and a reason why they are a growing threat and are attracting followers.
How do these quotes sound "“Give him love or hate, and he’ll give you a war. There is no peace among men.”"
"Bestow upon man love or hate, and he twists it to war. Peace is a forlorn concept to us mortals."
"Everyone has an island to themselves, its up to us to build bridges to them."
"Every man is an island alone, but together we can build bridges."
"You have only had the taste of it. Power is something that I can use to make you think you are in control of yourself. In truth if I had that power, I would control you."
Sounds good. It looks like a monologue from a character.
No man should own the power of gods, for the mind is corrupted so easily by the idea of godhood, it is a venom that leeches away at the soul. A single taste of true power, my friend, is something you will never forget. And it will corrupt you beyond belief."
A decent concept, and a long one at that.
Should I have a special race unique to my world along with the Revenants?
What makes a world unique is how you picture it. Not every fantasy setting requires unique creatures, but something different that stands out does make it unforgettable.
So I would strive to find something that works within your world.
What would be a disturbing creature?
To your world, what are the fears that haunt mankind? For the Wheel of Time cosmology, anything associated with the Dark One is taboo and scary.
Does your world have a bogeyman, or a race of creatures that hides in the dark recesses of the world, hardly ever communicating with other intelligent races?
What would the flora be like in a world where there is magic and what would one be like without? (The animals, the plants? I mean its a unique world, and the creatures aren't carbon copies of europe, it has its own flavor of creatures.)
Flora and fauna are what you imagine it to be. You will have forests and plains and farms. Cities will dot the civilized world and mountains and deserts to block progress. Do you want it to be extremely inhospitable or do you want it to be average, but with unique landscapes?
A land of magic will have more unusual things and places warped or tainted by magic gone wrong as well as land protected by magical interference.
The main thing is that there are creatures like yetis, goatmen, lucan, vampyr (Vampires that basically are really ugly and incredibly different from regular vampires, and what you think of vampires.)
I've started my third chapter, and as it starts to get militarized I have begun looking into military tactics and ideas from the renassiance.
Is five hundred man at arms and knights (a combined number) enough to quell a cult?
Five hundred men would require it to be raised from a considerable population. And how far advanced is the civilization? I would imagine a minor lord having a small contingent of armed men at the core and the rest conscripted from the local peasantry. How professional is this army?
Would I call a forward force? A Vanguard or a Spearhead?
Yes.
What should the naming conventions of Meroth be focused on? The Villains are based on Germanic names, the people of meroth are a mixed naming convention. Should I focus on a theme, or invent my own names?
Names based in reality with meaning have more force and intent. Shynansrj Aoldsgbngd does not sound very appetizing unless the intent is to conceive of a name so eccentric the idea is to convince the audience they are too foreign an entity to comprehend using their own knowledge base to form a connection.
Danka for the responses.
I mean I have a naming convention centered around alnar, lick, ris, and several others.
Well the most disturbing thing I can think of for this world is a being made of many, a being created from the bodies of childern, men, and woman. (This is a response to a monster)
The Vampyr will appear later on, but not in the first book. They will be mentioned though. Or I could include them for giggles. But I can't have too many or else it would get quite confusing and people would have trouble keeping track of whose who.
When I think of vampires, I think terrifying and absolutely revolting. They would like skeletons and bats had a sweet love child :B
And yeah the quotes I kind of wrote together. A single character talks about it
I've started my third chapter, and as it starts to get militarized I have begun looking into military tactics and ideas from the renassiance.
Is five hundred man at arms and knights (a combined number) enough to quell a cult?
No. It will take the temple easily, but isn't anything like enough to hunt down cultists after they scatter. Exception if the cultists are all gathered in one place for a ritual and they are surroundd and taken by surprise. Even so expect one or two survivors.
Interesting, but thats not what I am going for. I am going for something darker. currently.
I might talk about it.
But the main jist is something goes completely wrong.
How does the name The Cult of the Newborn God sound? I currently have their colors as black and blue. And they are a rising cult that has been starting trouble. They are known for certain things and are a major cult.
Sounds new, anything new and major is BIG trouble, not fringe trouble.
Their beliefs match with a certain house. I won't say who, but Adith will go into details about the houses while he is in a library, he is reading up on certain things, and Found this a great plot device to introduce certain things.
I mean its not all at once and some are very big portions, and I break it up with occassional comedy with Quientin (Adith's Trainer), Who is basically the Han Solo type of guy, he is just a sword for hire that trains lords in combat.
I have written so that the Cult is talked about in the beginning and then the houses are introduced by Wymond (The Hero of the Story) who talks about the political situation etc. He will talk about certain things.
No man should own the power of gods, for the mind is corrupted so easily by the idea of godhood, it is a venom that leeches away at the soul. A single taste of true power, my friend, is something you will never forget. And it will corrupt you beyond belief."
Good quote.
It only took me a minute to figure it out.
"Everyone has an island to themselves, its up to us to build bridges to them."
build bridges between them. - Unless you want to imply that bridges should connect only with the cult and nobody else. Thats very culty thinking.
Thats actually a quote from Adith. It needs work hahaha.
Should I have a special race unique to my world along with the Revenants?
Up to you, how many races do you have already?
Well currently alot. But in the book they only talk about like 20
What type of creatures should I use in my book? Should I add as many as possible? Or as few as possible?
When is it too early to kill a character?
Should I post some more information about my book?
What should I share? And what should I not share?
Should I post an authors note at the beginning of the story like tolkien and stuff?
I've been trying to figure an image of what the armor would look like, I mean, someone did a reinterperation of what the armor would look on a revenant :
-Thanks to Chalkstep on Darkstorm Roleplaying
I will talk about where the revenants get their armor but latter in the book it will be discussed exactly how and where they come from through a series of flash backs. Or I could leave it up to debate, to exactly how they were created and why exactly it happened
I mean I want a second opinion on this, Should I leave it up to debate? Or should I have multiple reasons as to why it happened (or just opinions from other characters?)
What should the main symbol be for the litor family? I don't want it to be a wolf, or a hawk. I have hit a brick wall on this one. (Just need some brainstorming ideas)
What would be the ideal way to write my armor?
Should I focus on a more romantic writing style or should I use a mix of writing styles?
What would the response be to seeing a bunch of zombies coming out of the ground?
What would be a good recommendation for military doctrines? (Like a good read to have the basics down, preferably something free)
How many character deaths is too many?
Should I end a chapter on a cliff hanger on a character's storyline and not resolve until two chapters later? Like you have no idea what the hell is happening to them, and they are gone for a bit. (not ressurected, just not involved until later on)
Would introducing an animal character be a good idea? I mean its either going to be a wolf or a falcon. Its not their for the awe factor its more there because it will sorta fit into the story and show a side to the main character, he will rarely show others.
What type of creatures should I use in my book? Should I add as many as possible? Or as few as possible?
When is it too early to kill a character?
I mean I want a second opinion on this, Should I leave it up to debate? Or should I have multiple reasons as to why it happened (or just opinions from other characters?)
What should the main symbol be for the litor family? I don't want it to be a wolf, or a hawk. I have hit a brick wall on this one. (Just need some brainstorming ideas)
What would the response be to seeing a bunch of zombies coming out of the ground?
How many character deaths is too many?
1. Ultimately up to you... if you're having magic, there's no real reason, other than stylistic ones to cut out mythical creatures. Having a good flora and fauna in your land will breathe some more life into the setting, I mean, I wouldn't waste a whole chapter just describing the virtues of one particular kind of tree, but the better described your world is, the better the setting will be overall.
2. the Table of Contents
3. Again, this could be a thing where in a flashback, you could describe how it actually happened, but have the "here and now" characters describe it in terms of local legends, etc. and the two can be as close or as far apart as you'd like
4. Family symbols are fun... Perhaps they share an animal with another house, only with a different positioning (common heraldry devices show, for instance a Lion Rampant, or Lion Passant as "primary" positions of complete animals) otherwise you could play with things like crossed weapons, or musical instruments, etc.
5. Depends... "new" soldiers would probably break and run, grizzled vets would probably stay long enough to figure out wtf is going on, mages would probably be mesmerized by the sight of the undead (think how a Deckard Cain from Diablo would react)... It greatly depends. Also, is this the first time the characters have encountered this? If so, they're going to react differently to their 2nd, 3rd and 4th encounter with the "same" thing... If it isn't the first time they've seen the dead rising from the ground, what kind of scale are we talking here? Is it "only" a graveyard rising up, or is it a former battlefield?
6. Judging by the works of people like GRRM, there can't really be too many.. Now, if Tolkein wrote SoIaF, then the amount of deaths in the story WOULD be too much (as Tolkein seems to have placed greater details and descriptions on nearly everything, whereas Martin loves to pack stuff into his books) This greatly depends on the overall tone you want, how creatively you can kill people off, and whether or not you feel comfortable putting more deaths into the story or not.
What type of creatures should I use in my book? Should I add as many as possible? Or as few as possible?
When is it too early to kill a character?
I mean I want a second opinion on this, Should I leave it up to debate? Or should I have multiple reasons as to why it happened (or just opinions from other characters?)
What should the main symbol be for the litor family? I don't want it to be a wolf, or a hawk. I have hit a brick wall on this one. (Just need some brainstorming ideas)
What would the response be to seeing a bunch of zombies coming out of the ground?
How many character deaths is too many?
1. Ultimately up to you... if you're having magic, there's no real reason, other than stylistic ones to cut out mythical creatures. Having a good flora and fauna in your land will breathe some more life into the setting, I mean, I wouldn't waste a whole chapter just describing the virtues of one particular kind of tree, but the better described your world is, the better the setting will be overall.
2. the Table of Contents
3. Again, this could be a thing where in a flashback, you could describe how it actually happened, but have the "here and now" characters describe it in terms of local legends, etc. and the two can be as close or as far apart as you'd like
4. Family symbols are fun... Perhaps they share an animal with another house, only with a different positioning (common heraldry devices show, for instance a Lion Rampant, or Lion Passant as "primary" positions of complete animals) otherwise you could play with things like crossed weapons, or musical instruments, etc.
5. Depends... "new" soldiers would probably break and run, grizzled vets would probably stay long enough to figure out wtf is going on, mages would probably be mesmerized by the sight of the undead (think how a Deckard Cain from Diablo would react)... It greatly depends. Also, is this the first time the characters have encountered this? If so, they're going to react differently to their 2nd, 3rd and 4th encounter with the "same" thing... If it isn't the first time they've seen the dead rising from the ground, what kind of scale are we talking here? Is it "only" a graveyard rising up, or is it a former battlefield?
6. Judging by the works of people like GRRM, there can't really be too many.. Now, if Tolkein wrote SoIaF, then the amount of deaths in the story WOULD be too much (as Tolkein seems to have placed greater details and descriptions on nearly everything, whereas Martin loves to pack stuff into his books) This greatly depends on the overall tone you want, how creatively you can kill people off, and whether or not you feel comfortable putting more deaths into the story or not.
Its the first time there is a zombie ever. There is no such thing as Resurrection or necromancy in this world until recently. There are no mages currently. Meroth has no mages or access to magic. It is on the eastern side. There are sages, but they are just prophets and use seeing rune stones. (which are probably fake and they are probably making it up)
What type of creatures should I use in my book? Should I add as many as possible? Or as few as possible?
Not more than you flesh out.
Avoif the D&D iodeology of making zillions of monsters. While noverlty is a good thing creatures needs to exist in the world, large fauna and sentients will make a mark on the world. You cant afford a large variety of large creatures, there basically isnt the room. Exceptions for extradimensional beings not part of the ecosystem, but they should visit rarely. You can also have an infinite variety of frankenmonsters made by wizards.
It isnt. In fact it is now part of the fantasy milieu to kill off characters intermittently through a work. However dont kill off a main character except at the end of a book or unless there is a pereexisting replacement.
Some characters should also be killed off.
Should I post some more information about my book?
Only generic information.
What should I share? And what should I not share?
Keep unique ideas to yourself, however most ideas are not unique, but combinations of ideas may be.
Should I post an authors note at the beginning of the story like Tolkien and stuff?
No, its rather pretentious. AStick to a dedication. An authors note is for an established author reviewing a takle written earlier.
An exception can be made for a concept obvious to the story but not the reader.
I've been trying to figure an image of what the armor would look like, I mean, someone did a reinterperation of what the armor would look on a revenant :
dont get fixated on an image unless you intend to illustrate the book. Make a description, not too exacting and let the reader provide the visuals.
I will talk about where the revenants get their armor but latter in the book it will be discussed exactly how and where they come from through a series of flash backs. Or I could leave it up to debate, to exactly how they were created and why exactly it happened
I mean I want a second opinion on this, Should I leave it up to debate? Or should I have multiple reasons as to why it happened (or just opinions from other characters?)
The more mysteriouis the enemy the more of a threat it is.
What should the main symbol be for the litor family? I don't want it to be a wolf, or a hawk. I have hit a brick wall on this one. (Just need some brainstorming ideas)
do a websearch on heraldry. Google images will do, after a page of two of RL heraldry images you will find something.
What would be the ideal way to write my armor?
With a u.
Should I focus on a more romantic writing style or should I use a mix of writing styles?
Your writing style is your own, dont force it.
What would the response be to seeing a bunch of zombies coming out of the ground?
Depends who you are.
Run! - for most
Attack first while they are still crawling out - for the brave
Retreat, and reestablish contact with the enemy once surprise has been negated - for the cautious
What would be a good recommendation for military doctrines? (Like a good read to have the basics down, preferably something free)
Sun Tzu.
seriously read it.
How many character deaths is too many?
All of them. Youi need a witness.
Should I end a chapter on a cliff hanger on a character's storyline and not resolve until two chapters later? Like you have no idea what the hell is happening to them, and they are gone for a bit. (not ressurected, just not involved until later on)
Cliffhangers are cliche, and not popular. Instead have character cliffhangers in the book, but dont have too many.
Would introducing an animal character be a good idea? I mean its either going to be a wolf or a falcon. Its not their for the awe factor its more there because it will sorta fit into the story and show a side to the main character, he will rarely show others.
Sentinet animals, or animals mimicing sentients are a common enough theme. I advise reading Richard Adams, in particular The Plague Dogs or Watership Down. In both works Adam's gives animals a form of sapience and uses them as viewpoint characters often with a goodly degree of intelligence, just with a marked difference of perspective and reasoning. Adams makes this work even in a modern world setting.
With a fantasy setting the hightenedd intelligence animal can be worked more closelly by using Adam's model.
You should be able to find Plague Dogs and Watership dwon clips on YouTube, which will give enough of a gist odf howe 'animal intelligence' works. This should provide some valuable inspiration.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Couldn't find a copy of Watership Down on YouTube, just dodgy links.
Found this though.
Well worth 100 minutes of your time, and the animal characterisation examples are very clear. Listen carefully to how the two main characters describe things and see the observable world, and the level of reasoning, superior to real animals, but not entirely implausibly so.
With a magically aware truly sapient beast you could do same, or even more.
Thanks for the reply. I actually have read watership down.
I will get back to you, as currently I am facing computer trouble with my new computer :/
Sentinent animals could add some variety into it. Or I could do something interesting to the druids.
Cliffhangers are cliche, and not popular. Instead have character cliffhangers in the book, but dont have too many.
I debated it. But then I remembered the LOTR where we have no idea what happened to frodo until four chapters later. I mean there are a few parts that are attention grabbers and quote unquote cliff hangers.
Sun Tzu.
seriously read it.
Will do
Depends who you are.
Run! - for most Attack first while they are still crawling out - for the brave Retreat, and reestablish contact with the enemy once surprise has been negated - for the cautious
Fool hardy are probably more likely to attack, and I know some characters like that.
I mean Wymond's journey is to find the cult of the newborn god and eliminate it.
Adith is to become a better warrior.
Adith's Older Sister wants to have power.
It isnt. In fact it is now part of the fantasy milieu to kill off characters intermittently through a work. However dont kill off a main character except at the end of a book or unless there is a pereexisting replacement. Some characters should also be killed off.
hahaha, I realize that now. now looking back most fantasy characters die. I remember watching supernatural which is infact a fantasy show, and how many characters they kill off in a single episode. (The record thus far is four)
Game of thrones killed 8 characters in a single season.
Another question I have is what would be fairly interesting to see in a villian? Eccentric and highly insane? Or a braggy type? I mean the first half of the book their is a singulary villian, Who I can't really reveal at this time. But he is quite violent, think of Ser Gregor The Mountain but make him intelligent and basically a brilliant commander, who is a glory hog. He isn't really human. Though the entire problem starts with him. And what he does.
The main part I stress with my villains is that they have good intentions. No matter what they do, they are still logical. The main part I want to get across is that the villains in this story once you get down to it, were never really the bad guys. This is not a good vs evil book, and that is the one thing I have been struggling to write. That is the hardest part of the novel. It is so easy to write a character that takes one side, but making a complex person is task that drains me. I might post some stuff about it. But in the end of the book, I want the reader to feel drained like as if they can side with either side, and know the evils of both, and decide for themselves, who was really the good guy?
This book is largely inspired by an idea I had after playing Spec Ops: The Line, and many fantasy books.
Should I explain all the background of the characters or leave it ambiguous?
Alright in one of my chapters I have a ruler who is female and she starts to go sorta mad with power. Should I make her sort of villainy or just make it so that she is just doing it for her family?
Are manipulated characters interesting?
Should a Villain be clouded in secrets and only referenced slightly?
Can I use names like Radigost? I mean the character is a wizard, but in no way a reference to LOTR's Radigost. Or should I rethink the name? Because its only a name in this case.
How quickly should I have the main character pick up fighting? Should I do it quickly and show the aftermath of fighting, or should I do it slow and show progression of the character?
What programs would people suggest for making a map of the world?
Any suggestions from the previous chapter that I have posted?
What would be a good way to show and not tell?
Should I have other races get involved? (Like Yeti's and Goatmen?)
Should I explain all the background of the characters or leave it ambiguous?
Alright in one of my chapters I have a ruler who is female and she starts to go sorta mad with power. Should I make her sort of villainy or just make it so that she is just doing it for her family?
Are manipulated characters interesting?
Should a Villain be clouded in secrets and only referenced slightly?
Can I use names like Radigost? I mean the character is a wizard, but in no way a reference to LOTR's Radigost. Or should I rethink the name? Because its only a name in this case.
How quickly should I have the main character pick up fighting? Should I do it quickly and show the aftermath of fighting, or should I do it slow and show progression of the character?
What programs would people suggest for making a map of the world?
Any suggestions from the previous chapter that I have posted?
What would be a good way to show and not tell?
Should I have other races get involved? (Like Yeti's and Goatmen?)
1) As colorful as you want. Painting armor(or at least shields) is a quick and easy way of identifying yourself and your men. But nobody is going to make themselves look silly. Remember painting armor also serves a practical purpose of protecting the metal from rusting. Padded leather armor was also often given heraldic colors as well.
2) No, unless you only have a couple characters it would not only be tedious and seem staged but it would also be an incredible waste of space. This is what you save for additional books or anthologies.
3) The 2 options are not mutually exclusive. She's told herself its for her family so many times she believes it, and it might be true, but she's also/really just gone mad with power.
4) Yes
5) Maybe, depends on the story.
6) The original is Radagast, but that is a little too close. I'd start over on a name.
7) Fighting is a funny little skill. Its not going to be hard to pick up the basics, but difficult to master. You can easily learn how to swing a sword or use a shield, make a feint, and parry. But learning all the subtle nuances of using those skills is what takes time and practice. So its not going to be a gradual progression. Starting from nothing, you have a quick increase in proficiency, then a plateau, followed by a long and slow rise in skill which could take years.
8-9) N/A
10) Depends on what you want to show and not tell. Descriptions are always good, if done from the third person. Say someone picks up an object of importance, give it a through description(if it makes sense in the story). If they had time to look at it, even for only 10-15 seconds, give the description. If they just glance at it and put it in their pocket to study later then just give a barebones description.
11) Sure, its always fun to add a little variety even if it isn't crucial to the story. And better if it is.
Should I explain all the background of the characters or leave it ambiguous?
Alright in one of my chapters I have a ruler who is female and she starts to go sorta mad with power. Should I make her sort of villainy or just make it so that she is just doing it for her family?
Are manipulated characters interesting?
Should a Villain be clouded in secrets and only referenced slightly?
Can I use names like Radigost? I mean the character is a wizard, but in no way a reference to LOTR's Radigost. Or should I rethink the name? Because its only a name in this case.
How quickly should I have the main character pick up fighting? Should I do it quickly and show the aftermath of fighting, or should I do it slow and show progression of the character?
What programs would people suggest for making a map of the world?
Any suggestions from the previous chapter that I have posted?
What would be a good way to show and not tell?
Should I have other races get involved? (Like Yeti's and Goatmen?)
1) As colorful as you want. Painting armor(or at least shields) is a quick and easy way of identifying yourself and your men. But nobody is going to make themselves look silly. Remember painting armor also serves a practical purpose of protecting the metal from rusting. Padded leather armor was also often given heraldic colors as well.
2) No, unless you only have a couple characters it would not only be tedious and seem staged but it would also be an incredible waste of space. This is what you save for additional books or anthologies.
3) The 2 options are not mutually exclusive. She's told herself its for her family so many times she believes it, and it might be true, but she's also/really just gone mad with power.
4) Yes
5) Maybe, depends on the story.
6) The original is Radagast, but that is a little too close. I'd start over on a name.
7) Fighting is a funny little skill. Its not going to be hard to pick up the basics, but difficult to master. You can easily learn how to swing a sword or use a shield, make a feint, and parry. But learning all the subtle nuances of using those skills is what takes time and practice. So its not going to be a gradual progression. Starting from nothing, you have a quick increase in proficiency, then a plateau, followed by a long and slow rise in skill which could take years.
8-9) N/A
10) Depends on what you want to show and not tell. Descriptions are always good, if done from the third person. Say someone picks up an object of importance, give it a through description(if it makes sense in the story). If they had time to look at it, even for only 10-15 seconds, give the description. If they just glance at it and put it in their pocket to study later then just give a barebones description.
11) Sure, its always fun to add a little variety even if it isn't crucial to the story. And better if it is.
Next set of questions.
How should I let magic come in the world.
Give me a few examples. I mean currently I Have an idea. Which is that someone, somewhere holds the key to be able to unlock the magic, and some unwillingly kills him and unlocks a seal
What about demigods? Should I add a few to the story?
Should I add illusions to other books and myths?
For Radigost? What should I replace it with? The name I mean. He is a wizard, but he is not really similar to his LOTR counterpart. Actually he is insane, but to the degree of brilliance.
Should I have them (The characters and the reader) explore the world? Like have Adith and crew go down south to explore talderia, woodland circle, etc. And have the older brother head north and then west to the other kingdoms and finally have the two meet up in ______. Should I stay with that plan? I mean I blocked out where they will meet last. Because alot of the areas are just locations.
How many characters is too many?
How many chapters should I aim for a book? Like 20? 30? How many pages? I want it to be as fleshed out as possible.
There are a few possibilities for magic getting unlocked.
1) Some deranged individual in the distant past discovered a way to contact some sort of daemon/god or something and sold his soul to it in exchange for its power. But then others managed to kill this person and steal his power and distributed it, all bypassing the need to make a daemonic pact to get the power. So the daemon/god was left with only 1 soul and didn't get his power back and so its now available to everyone.
2) A war between the gods results in one being slain and his remains were scattered across the world, certain individuals might be born with or accumulate enough of these particles to gain a portion of the fallen gods power. Or at least the ability to tap into some source of power.
3) An individual or group of individuals makes a pact for power from a super natural being on the behalf of their entire race. Payment due at a later date by all their descendents. Gives you a nice little future impending crisis as the giver of magic comes to collect on the debt.
Grey Templar wrote: There are a few possibilities for magic getting unlocked.
1) Some deranged individual in the distant past discovered a way to contact some sort of daemon/god or something and sold his soul to it in exchange for its power. But then others managed to kill this person and steal his power and distributed it, all bypassing the need to make a daemonic pact to get the power. So the daemon/god was left with only 1 soul and didn't get his power back and so its now available to everyone.
2) A war between the gods results in one being slain and his remains were scattered across the world, certain individuals might be born with or accumulate enough of these particles to gain a portion of the fallen gods power. Or at least the ability to tap into some source of power.
3) An individual or group of individuals makes a pact for power from a super natural being on the behalf of their entire race. Payment due at a later date by all their descendents. Gives you a nice little future impending crisis as the giver of magic comes to collect on the debt.
4. perhaps magic, is actually an aetherial (sp) substance that had been bound beneath the crust of the world. Then a large tectonic event (such as a volcano or some such) opened the crust/exposed this aether to the greater world and due to genetics (in a fantasy setting this could be explained in more fantastical terms... like they are born with the "gift" or some such) some people are more in tune with this aether and can manipulate it, thus "magic"
Grey Templar wrote: There are a few possibilities for magic getting unlocked.
1) Some deranged individual in the distant past discovered a way to contact some sort of daemon/god or something and sold his soul to it in exchange for its power. But then others managed to kill this person and steal his power and distributed it, all bypassing the need to make a daemonic pact to get the power. So the daemon/god was left with only 1 soul and didn't get his power back and so its now available to everyone.
2) A war between the gods results in one being slain and his remains were scattered across the world, certain individuals might be born with or accumulate enough of these particles to gain a portion of the fallen gods power. Or at least the ability to tap into some source of power.
3) An individual or group of individuals makes a pact for power from a super natural being on the behalf of their entire race. Payment due at a later date by all their descendents. Gives you a nice little future impending crisis as the giver of magic comes to collect on the debt.
4. perhaps magic, is actually an aetherial (sp) substance that had been bound beneath the crust of the world. Then a large tectonic event (such as a volcano or some such) opened the crust/exposed this aether to the greater world and due to genetics (in a fantasy setting this could be explained in more fantastical terms... like they are born with the "gift" or some such) some people are more in tune with this aether and can manipulate it, thus "magic"
5. Magic being a very low resource is substained by life and all the energy that comes from that or it is caused by underground wells of aetheric energy or nodes of magic. Due to a calaticism that almost destroyed the world, an entire empire was killed in a single night and all the magic drained from the world. Over time magic has waned due to someone bending these nodes to create new ones from blood sacrifices over time they have accomplished this by ritually sacrificing empires over time.
Thats my try at it. And is in no way reference to full metal alchemist brotherhood
Grey Templar wrote: There are a few possibilities for magic getting unlocked.
1) Some deranged individual in the distant past discovered a way to contact some sort of daemon/god or something and sold his soul to it in exchange for its power. But then others managed to kill this person and steal his power and distributed it, all bypassing the need to make a daemonic pact to get the power. So the daemon/god was left with only 1 soul and didn't get his power back and so its now available to everyone.
2) A war between the gods results in one being slain and his remains were scattered across the world, certain individuals might be born with or accumulate enough of these particles to gain a portion of the fallen gods power. Or at least the ability to tap into some source of power.
3) An individual or group of individuals makes a pact for power from a super natural being on the behalf of their entire race. Payment due at a later date by all their descendents. Gives you a nice little future impending crisis as the giver of magic comes to collect on the debt.
4. perhaps magic, is actually an aetherial (sp) substance that had been bound beneath the crust of the world. Then a large tectonic event (such as a volcano or some such) opened the crust/exposed this aether to the greater world and due to genetics (in a fantasy setting this could be explained in more fantastical terms... like they are born with the "gift" or some such) some people are more in tune with this aether and can manipulate it, thus "magic"
5. Magic being a very low resource is substained by life and all the energy that comes from that or it is caused by underground wells of aetheric energy or nodes of magic. Due to a calaticism that almost destroyed the world, an entire empire was killed in a single night and all the magic drained from the world. Over time magic has waned due to someone bending these nodes to create new ones from blood sacrifices over time they have accomplished this by ritually sacrificing empires over time.
Thats my try at it. And is in no way reference to full metal alchemist brotherhood
6. Magic works because people believe it does... Also, painting things like carts and horses red make them go faster (but this is in no way a reference to Orks )
Metal armour can be painted with enamel, leathers can be dyed, but it requires a heavy dye.
Armour tended not to be painted except for the rich, and paint chips off easily.
Instead soldiers wore embroidered surcoats which carried their hearldry. However you could have warriors without surcoats and painted armour, it is fantasy after all. You could also colour the metal itself, though s magic potion.
Alright in one of my chapters I have a ruler who is female and she starts to go sorta mad with power. Should I make her sort of villainy or just make it so that she is just doing it for her family?
By and large no, unless you haver another reason for sympathy towards them. A catspaw character is in effect a piece of machinery withn the m,anipulator being the character, though this depends how much in the thrall the manipulated person is.
Can I use names like Radigost? I mean the character is a wizard, but in no way a reference to LOTR's Radigost. Or should I rethink the name? Because its only a name in this case.
How quickly should I have the main character pick up fighting? Should I do it quickly and show the aftermath of fighting, or should I do it slow and show progression of the character?
First chapter, start with a bang.
You have three hooks to get the reader reading. The first line, the first two paragraphs and the first chapter, you must hit at least two of those targets.
Describe feelings rather than third party observations.
In fantasy and SF however it should be show and tell. This goes against the standard literary training, however said training is for mainstram literature, mostly used to write about the contemporary or historical world. You would show not tell a crime drama character because the reference is there for us to know his broad background as a modern human. However in fantasy the environment is also a character, and bears description.
Metal armour can be painted with enamel, leathers can be dyed, but it requires a heavy dye.
Armour tended not to be painted except for the rich, and paint chips off easily.
Instead soldiers wore embroidered surcoats which carried their hearldry. However you could have warriors without surcoats and painted armour, it is fantasy after all. You could also colour the metal itself, though s magic potion.
Yeah, often times (in real life) even the wealthiest knights/noblemen would wear some kind of surcoat, or be carrying their shield/ or standard of some kind to show "who" they were
Most accounts that I've personally read about painted armor was on a set of tournament armor, which was naturally more ornate than battle plate.
I know that GoT (the books, not the TV show) had armorers creating non-magically colored armors.. Particularly Gendry's master (IIRC) was able to make actual blue steel (as opposed to a lacquer) though I'd probably not go this exact route. Unless you're having someone wear damascus plate (which Ive honestly only heard of damascus steel weapons) there's not going to be too much color on a metal plate, excepting it's natural or polished color.
Tasked with defending the final resting places of the dead. They are the guardians of the ancient dead. Created originally to protect artifacts. They are now commonly used to protect mass grave least a Necromancer gets their hands on a mass grave. Drauqr are the only exception to rule among mages to create beings from human remains. Drauqr are mages that are bound to the bones and armor of a long dead warrior. They are extremely powerful and practice their art while they guard their task given to them by The Mage Council.
They can still use their magics that they once used in their mortal lives, but now their magics are amplified. Their bodies are considered to be relics, which means their powers are tenfold. Drauqr are extremely potent and usually guard their tasks with another Drauqr. In times of great need the Drauqr are called upon for their knowledge and their powers.
Honestly mate, I would seriously change the name of these, as they clearly reminiscent of Draugr from Skyrim (at least in my mind).... It's almost like a "they're Draugr but they're good"
Dude, so many of your questions are answered in the Writing Excuses podcast. I'm serious. I'm a published author and these guys were a huge help in getting me there. They talk all about magic and how to use it, writing action, introducing characters, etc, etc.
http://www.writingexcuses.com/
Tasked with defending the final resting places of the dead. They are the guardians of the ancient dead. Created originally to protect artifacts. They are now commonly used to protect mass grave least a Necromancer gets their hands on a mass grave. Drauqr are the only exception to rule among mages to create beings from human remains. Drauqr are mages that are bound to the bones and armor of a long dead warrior. They are extremely powerful and practice their art while they guard their task given to them by The Mage Council.
They can still use their magics that they once used in their mortal lives, but now their magics are amplified. Their bodies are considered to be relics, which means their powers are tenfold. Drauqr are extremely potent and usually guard their tasks with another Drauqr. In times of great need the Drauqr are called upon for their knowledge and their powers.
Honestly mate, I would seriously change the name of these, as they clearly reminiscent of Draugr from Skyrim (at least in my mind).... It's almost like a "they're Draugr but they're good"
I will change it though, but I can't use golems because those are jewish in origin. Skeletons and zombies don't really do the job as they are just mindless servants, while the Draugr are just soldiers placed into the body of a golem like body.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MWHistorian wrote: Dude, so many of your questions are answered in the Writing Excuses podcast. I'm serious. I'm a published author and these guys were a huge help in getting me there. They talk all about magic and how to use it, writing action, introducing characters, etc, etc.
http://www.writingexcuses.com/
Tasked with defending the final resting places of the dead. They are the guardians of the ancient dead. Created originally to protect artifacts. They are now commonly used to protect mass grave least a Necromancer gets their hands on a mass grave. Drauqr are the only exception to rule among mages to create beings from human remains. Drauqr are mages that are bound to the bones and armor of a long dead warrior. They are extremely powerful and practice their art while they guard their task given to them by The Mage Council.
They can still use their magics that they once used in their mortal lives, but now their magics are amplified. Their bodies are considered to be relics, which means their powers are tenfold. Drauqr are extremely potent and usually guard their tasks with another Drauqr. In times of great need the Drauqr are called upon for their knowledge and their powers.
Honestly mate, I would seriously change the name of these, as they clearly reminiscent of Draugr from Skyrim (at least in my mind).... It's almost like a "they're Draugr but they're good"
I will change it though, but I can't use golems because those are jewish in origin. Skeletons and zombies don't really do the job as they are just mindless servants, while the Draugr are just soldiers placed into the body of a golem like body.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MWHistorian wrote: Dude, so many of your questions are answered in the Writing Excuses podcast. I'm serious. I'm a published author and these guys were a huge help in getting me there. They talk all about magic and how to use it, writing action, introducing characters, etc, etc.
http://www.writingexcuses.com/
Well. I've never heard of them until. Now.
They won a Hugo, so it's not like they're unheard of. And Brandon Sanderson is on it. He wrote Mistborn and is finishing the Wheel of Time series. Not a small name either.
Werebears
Werebears are similar to the werewolves. But only larger and more terrifying. Though lacking the speed of the werewolf. Werebears make up for it with large amount of strength and durability, they feel no pain, and unlike werewolves those that are werebears are fully aware that they are cursed. It is said that the first werebear was a Human called Yuron, he one day found a bear trapped and freed it. The Goddess of Beasts and the God of Nature descended upon him and offered him a choice, that he could safeguard all the animals of their kingdom or he could live forever.
He choose to safeguard all the animals and creatures of the God’s Kingdom, and he became the first werebear. The Werebears are not as vicious as Werewolves and are infact enemies of Werewolves. They are the allies of the Druids and the Werebears possess all their human intellect. They are also known for being able to transform into their forms whenever they wish, unlike werewolves.
They are known as the Guardians of the Forest, such as their Ancestor Yuron was. Who blessed many others with his power. They are often patrolling the forests for any who defile their forests.
If you're going to write, you need to practice proper grammar at all times. This includes notes that you share with others and replies on message boards.
I will change it though, but I can't use golems because those are jewish in origin. Skeletons and zombies don't really do the job as they are just mindless servants, while the Draugr are just soldiers placed into the body of a golem like body.
One of my favorite books is called A Cruel Wind (Pick it up, please. It's kind of weird, but in a good way), and it has POWERFUL magic.
Without going into too much detail, in the Prologue one of the main characters (Whose a mute) has his mom executed, his adoptive parents die, he runs away to the barbarians' lands with twelve other kids, studies magic from all twelve tribes, sends one kid back to his home kingdom to warn them of pending doom every year, shows up on the thirteenth with an army at his beck and call.... and promptly summons an earthquake so massive it destroys the walls of the city and leaves the defenses in ruins, allowing the army to ransack it as they please.
Not going to lie, the build up and everything about that was one of the best I've ever read.
What is going to be your magic system? Items of Power? Ingredients? Willpower? Pacts with Eldritch creatures?
One of my favorite books is called A Cruel Wind (Pick it up, please. It's kind of weird, but in a good way), and it has POWERFUL magic.
Without going into too much detail, in the Prologue one of the main characters (Whose a mute) has his mom executed, his adoptive parents die, he runs away to the barbarians' lands with twelve other kids, studies magic from all twelve tribes, sends one kid back to his home kingdom to warn them of pending doom every year, shows up on the thirteenth with an army at his beck and call.... and promptly summons an earthquake so massive it destroys the walls of the city and leaves the defenses in ruins, allowing the army to ransack it as they please.
Not going to lie, the build up and everything about that was one of the best I've ever read.
What is going to be your magic system? Items of Power? Ingredients? Willpower? Pacts with Eldritch creatures?
More of a belief idea. IT exists because people believe in it, or there is magic through out the world and has to be tapped into.
Werebears
Werebears are similar to the werewolves. But only larger and more terrifying. Though lacking the speed of the werewolf. Werebears make up for it with large amount of strength and durability, they feel no pain, and unlike werewolves those that are werebears are fully aware that they are cursed. It is said that the first werebear was a Human called Yuron, he one day found a bear trapped and freed it. The Goddess of Beasts and the God of Nature descended upon him and offered him a choice, that he could safeguard all the animals of their kingdom or he could live forever.
He choose to safeguard all the animals and creatures of the God’s Kingdom, and he became the first werebear. The Werebears are not as vicious as Werewolves and are infact enemies of Werewolves. They are the allies of the Druids and the Werebears possess all their human intellect. They are also known for being able to transform into their forms whenever they wish, unlike werewolves.
They are known as the Guardians of the Forest, such as their Ancestor Yuron was. Who blessed many others with his power. They are often patrolling the forests for any who defile their forests.
If you're going to write, you need to practice proper grammar at all times. This includes notes that you share with others and replies on message boards.
Best of luck!
Agreed. I do have to work on my grammar. Thankfully most of the things here are early drafts.
Wheel of Time and Sword of Truth are considered two of the better more modern fantasy books (Both go on for 11 or so books, though). I would also add in Glenn Cook (Anything by him, like A Cruel Wind), but that's a personal recommendation, YMMV.
With the Magic, if I don't believe in magic, am I still affected by it?
With the Magic, if I don't believe in magic, am I still affected by it?
From his previous comments, I would hazard a guess that it's a bit like Orks... Just because you're a Space Marine doesn't mean that the warp lightning from the Weird Boy isn't going to hurt any less because you dont believe in Ork magic
With the Magic, if I don't believe in magic, am I still affected by it?
From his previous comments, I would hazard a guess that it's a bit like Orks... Just because you're a Space Marine doesn't mean that the warp lightning from the Weird Boy isn't going to hurt any less because you dont believe in Ork magic
Basically. It will work like this it needs belief to work, but it also needs energy to function. If you believe in it that is all great and handy, but if you don''t have a battery what use are you going to be?
With the Magic, if I don't believe in magic, am I still affected by it?
From his previous comments, I would hazard a guess that it's a bit like Orks... Just because you're a Space Marine doesn't mean that the warp lightning from the Weird Boy isn't going to hurt any less because you dont believe in Ork magic
True, but I've always seen "Belief Magic" as this:
If you believe that you can shoot fireballs from your arse, solely because some guy who could showed you how, your magic comes from your being shown that it could happen; you literally only believe because you've seen it happen.
But what if I believe with 100%, nay 110% of my being that magic isn't real, isn't my own belief just as "magical"? Shouldn't that A) Prevent me from being able to use any sort of magic and B) Give me a sort of "Anti-Magic Belief Shield" due to my own strong beliefs? Naturally I would have to have the talent/mana to be able to keep said shield sustained (And if doing such caused fatigue, would wonder why I am so tired after being Avada Kadavra'ed several times).
Not that I have a problem with Belief Magic, but it is something to think about, no?
With the Magic, if I don't believe in magic, am I still affected by it?
From his previous comments, I would hazard a guess that it's a bit like Orks... Just because you're a Space Marine doesn't mean that the warp lightning from the Weird Boy isn't going to hurt any less because you dont believe in Ork magic
True, but I've always seen "Belief Magic" as this:
If you believe that you can shoot fireballs from your arse, solely because some guy who could showed you how, your magic comes from your being shown that it could happen; you literally only believe because you've seen it happen.
But what if I believe with 100%, nay 110% of my being that magic isn't real, isn't my own belief just as "magical"? Shouldn't that A) Prevent me from being able to use any sort of magic and B) Give me a sort of "Anti-Magic Belief Shield" due to my own strong beliefs? Naturally I would have to have the talent/mana to be able to keep said shield sustained (And if doing such caused fatigue, would wonder why I am so tired after being Avada Kadavra'ed several times).
Not that I have a problem with Belief Magic, but it is something to think about, no?
Interesting. I'll consider that. But it would be more of an equation who ever truly believes in it and has the right tools to do so. You can't just yell fireball and think it works.
That would kind of be funny. I might keep that in the comedy world I am thinking about.
You could do some really interesting things with it; the character himself is like a giant Mana Battery who doesn't believe in magic, but after a giant magical assault has his reserves drained and he gets lit on fire by a fireball.
Do you know how much that would WRECK his beliefs? "If Magic isn't real.... how did I get hurt by it?"
One of the reasons I've never been able to write a book; I get to thinking about stories, come up with a small sub plot, and then that sub plot gets fully plotted out enough to become the main plot, and then come up with a small sub plot....
My current idea is Game of Thrones meets Justice League; Superheros, with Politics.
Slarg232 wrote: You could do some really interesting things with it; the character himself is like a giant Mana Battery who doesn't believe in magic, but after a giant magical assault has his reserves drained and he gets lit on fire by a fireball.
Do you know how much that would WRECK his beliefs? "If Magic isn't real.... how did I get hurt by it?"
One of the reasons I've never been able to write a book; I get to thinking about stories, come up with a small sub plot, and then that sub plot gets fully plotted out enough to become the main plot, and then come up with a small sub plot....
My current idea is Game of Thrones meets Justice League; Superheros, with Politics.
Haha. Yeah the main character does not ever use magic, through the course of the story. His brother might. I am still planning on it. But I might make fun of the fact that Adith does not have power by saying he is special in some way.
But yeah there might be deaths related to magic later in the book.
So I've been thinking long and hard about a certain type of way to progress the story.
So the main bits will be.
Adith + Quientin + Stanimir (Adith's Body Guard) go out training in the wilderness and travel throughout Meorth
Wymond + Sir Loriane + Septimus (The Lord at Arms) go out to seek out the Cult reports with a sizable army to quell it. As there are whispers of a rebellion brewing
Slyvia + Rosella + Another Character will handle the Political situation. Rosella being one of the rangers (i.e. assassin) charged to protect Lady Slyvia Litor.
And then fourth and finale point of view will be from the eyes of the Men of Oren, a party of men who are scouting in Meroth. They are the most savage of the all characters and are quite possibly my favorite group of characters because of many reasons.
I might post a point of view later from each character point of view.
In total there will only ever be 4 major points of view in a single chapter. And it will exchange between all the characters. Some characters will get the light while other times the other characters will get the light.
Also I've been thinking and I've decided to make it so that the characters remain anonomyous looking, so the reader decides what the main characters look like. All we know is some are attractive, have a certain hair colors and that is about it.
I don't want to give the characters a ton of physical description because they have a lot of traits and history that will make up for that. This is a first for me because I usually go into detail about every single detail I can.
Anyone think that is a good or a bad idea?
Also I've been thinking about the plot and I am starting to change things around. Events will happen differently than I first planned out.
I wouldn't make your characters "anonymous looking", you should at least give a rudimentary physical description when they are introduced.
"He was a brute of a man, tall and broad, with a square set jaw, but his eyes were kind brown orbs, the only hint of softness in him."
Something like that. Generic enough to where you can fill in the details, but you get the point across that he's a big guy.
As for the points of view, I'd keep it to no more than 2 related points of view per chapter. That way you don't confuse a reader by jumping back and forth. Keeping it based on the chapter keeps it structured and lets the reader know you are switching viewpoints so they can collect their thoughts and remember what was happening last in that story arc.
With the arcs you currently have, separate them into 3.
Have (Slyvia + Rosella + Another Character) and (Adith + Quientin + Stanimir) be a single chapter and the other 2 arcs be their own separate chapters.
Grey Templar wrote: I wouldn't make your characters "anonymous looking", you should at least give a rudimentary physical description when they are introduced.
"He was a brute of a man, tall and broad, with a square set jaw, but his eyes were kind brown orbs, the only hint of softness in him."
Something like that. Generic enough to where you can fill in the details, but you get the point across that he's a big guy.
As for the points of view, I'd keep it to no more than 2 related points of view per chapter. That way you don't confuse a reader by jumping back and forth. Keeping it based on the chapter keeps it structured and lets the reader know you are switching viewpoints so they can collect their thoughts and remember what was happening last in that story arc.
With the arcs you currently have, separate them into 3.
Have (Slyvia + Rosella + Another Character) and (Adith + Quientin + Stanimir) be a single chapter and the other 2 arcs be their own separate chapters.
Ahh okay. So just exchange it then. Good idea.
As each will take half a chapter for each point of view.
Should I split up the points of view or keep it as a single chunk and not split it up into multiple parts?
Each point of view should have a substantial chunk of "screentime", at least enough to where the reader doesn't feel like they're being jerked back and forth. Find natural break points to swap.
You could make an individual point of view shorter if it makes sense, such as where story lines are converging on the same point.
Werebears
Werebears are similar to the werewolves. But only larger and more terrifying. Though lacking the speed of the werewolf. Werebears make up for it with large amount of strength and durability, they feel no pain, and unlike werewolves those that are werebears are fully aware that they are cursed. It is said that the first werebear was a Human called Yuron, he one day found a bear trapped and freed it. The Goddess of Beasts and the God of Nature descended upon him and offered him a choice, that he could safeguard all the animals of their kingdom or he could live forever.
He choose to safeguard all the animals and creatures of the God’s Kingdom, and he became the first werebear. The Werebears are not as vicious as Werewolves and are infact enemies of Werewolves. They are the allies of the Druids and the Werebears possess all their human intellect. They are also known for being able to transform into their forms whenever they wish, unlike werewolves.
They are known as the Guardians of the Forest, such as their Ancestor Yuron was. Who blessed many others with his power. They are often patrolling the forests for any who defile their forests.
I like this, however to make it really work make the main werebear in your story a female. First it hightens the difference between vulnerable to invulnerable, a she-bear will likely be no smaller than the male bear, but the human form will be.
Also it prevents any confusion or connect to Beorn.
I also use werebears and werewolves but go a different route.
Trolls
Trolls are extremely vicious creatures, hostile and known for attacking caravans so that they may plunder for shiny things. They are known for starting avalanches, and rock slides to distract their prey.
Nice, very good iconography, keep it up. I like the hunt for shiny things. Is the avalanche starting a mystic power or just a large shout while in mountains, avalanches and rock slides also need to be set up, by weather or rolling boulders uphill, and are preventable.
Flesh beasts are creatures of the God of Blood. Said to be formed from the flesh of hundreds of dead. They are creatures of hate and destruction. They are the enemies of all life. They have been known for killing dragons, trolls, giants, werewolves, and for entire caravans. The Flesh beasts travel by themselves and are always hungry. They come at the break of dawn, they hunt and stay near populated areas so that they will always have an ample amount of food.
An evil being that hunts specifically by day rather than night. I like the twist.
An ancient order that are inherently demons and former mortals that have gained the power of gods. The God of wealth though was turned into a dragon, his Demi God son took over his place as the God of Wealth, he uses his power unlike his father to feed his massed army of soldiers that are demons. He chooses those mortals that wish to not die and to make their lives worth some. They are on par with the knights of Obsidia. In fact the Knights of Obsidia drove the Golden Horde from their homeland. The two mercenary groups have been at war with each other ever since. The Golden Horde focus on magical abilities of water and ice. They are skilled at the powers they use and are known for being extremely needy in terms of money.
They are devious and extremely dangerous if not paid their full pensions. They only wish for one thing. Gold and wealth and fame and sex. They are skilled swordsmen, riders and if ever gathered into a single place are known for breaking entire battlements. Their cavarly and lancers are famed for being extremely powerful. Their terrifying charges have made entire battalions break.
The Demi-God only wants his forces to get large enough so that one day he may conquer a kingdom for his own. He is often very elusive in his Castle. The famed Palace of Silver, a Palace guarded by the Warrior of Greed. He surrounds himself with powerful guards and terrifying guardians. He even keeps the most exotic and beautiful women in the lands of Ör. He has many children that are within his palace many who have tried to kill him, but they are mortal and he is immortal. Where he kills them outright after they try to kill him.
There is a historical Golden Horde, one of the later Mongool kingdoms in what is now Russia.
You need to reword the above, its disjointed, but the imagination is fine.
Tasked with defending the final resting places of the dead. They are the guardians of the ancient dead. Created originally to protect artifacts. They are now commonly used to protect mass grave least a Necromancer gets their hands on a mass grave. Drauqr are the only exception to rule among mages to create beings from human remains. Drauqr are mages that are bound to the bones and armor of a long dead warrior. They are extremely powerful and practice their art while they guard their task given to them by The Mage Council.
They can still use their magics that they once used in their mortal lives, but now their magics are amplified. Their bodies are considered to be relics, which means their powers are tenfold. Drauqr are extremely potent and usually guard their tasks with another Drauqr. In times of great need the Drauqr are called upon for their knowledge and their powers.
None can tell you not to use Draugr, they have been in use in fantasy fro some time, so even if Bethesda/Zenimax try to be arseholes you can tell them they appeared before in 2000AD, as well as being Norse myth.
You are however describing Liches, not Draugr. Might as well get it right, call them liches, its what they are.
You could call them draugr anyway, but that isnt artistry, just ignorance.
The Cù Sìth are creatures or wolves that are mystical in origin. These creatures are ferocious and magical. They use poison and acidic magics. Their acidic magics are so potent that they can melt knights armor and flesh. The Cù Sìth are clever creatures and extremely intelligent, able to bring many to their deaths. They are known for teleporting and for having extremely terrible defenses compared to their wolf cousins a single sword swing could kill this creature. But the chances of actually hitting the Cù Sìth are very unlikely. Infact there have been a few demigods who were slain by a small group of Cù Sìth.
Donestre
Creatures that are said to have the strength of a lion and the power of a mage. They are feared creatures. As they are both man and lion. Having the face of a lion and intelligence of a man. They have powerful magics that very few know of. They usually guard ancient repistories of knowledge. They are known for being in conclaves, and small villages, which allow them to keep their numbers.
Lionmen, ok. You could try something other than lions though. One you have Thundercats, two you have Aslan both the individual God lion and the race from Traveller given the same name, Khajiit, Kilrathi, etc etc.
Lions could be one of their forms, perhaps your race could be 'half spareshifters' with Lions being one of their aspects, say rulership, want to be stronger become half bull, when you need to be faster half deer, see further/prophecy, half eagle. You can use all the fantasy animal geneotypes. It also ties in an Egyptian pantheon imagery.
Sounds to me this is a 'good' race, but one not to be messed with. Probably enemies of the Cu Sith and one of the few races that the acid wolves daren't try to attack.
Grey Templar wrote: Each point of view should have a substantial chunk of "screentime", at least enough to where the reader doesn't feel like they're being jerked back and forth. Find natural break points to swap.
You could make an individual point of view shorter if it makes sense, such as where story lines are converging on the same point.
Ah I see. Being Jerked/pulled around all over the place would be confusing. As I can see with my rough draft version.
So you've got pretty much a cult of excess, who are both daemons and mortals? Too confusing.
I'd change it to be the mortal followers of a god excess and self-betterment. Kinda like Slannesh, but the older versions of Slannesh. As a follower, you are expected to excel at everything. Its a competition for their god's favor, the best individual gets the favors and rewards. Rewards which come in all things.
No mortal ascension to daemon/godhood, except possibly the upper circles of leadership. Maybe they sort of do a Dreadnought thing with some of their members who have ascended. They have some sort of artificial body that they can possess and walk into battle as daemonic metal warriors made of brass and iron. So rare occurrences but it would still be there.
Grey Templar wrote: I wouldn't make your characters "anonymous looking", you should at least give a rudimentary physical description when they are introduced.
"He was a brute of a man, tall and broad, with a square set jaw, but his eyes were kind brown orbs, the only hint of softness in him."
Something like that. Generic enough to where you can fill in the details, but you get the point across that he's a big guy.
Good call, but you can choose to make one character very nondescript, in which case rough size and gender is all that is claimed, plus the colour of skin hair and eyes showing. You coukld than have that person nondescript for a reason.
This is for an exception though.
As for the points of view, I'd keep it to no more than 2 related points of view per chapter. That way you don't confuse a reader by jumping back and forth. Keeping it based on the chapter keeps it structured and lets the reader know you are switching viewpoints so they can collect their thoughts and remember what was happening last in that story arc.
POV characters, one per chapter maximum and the POV character cant die in their own chapter, but can die on the last paragraph of it.
With the arcs you currently have, separate them into 3.
Have (Slyvia + Rosella + Another Character) and (Adith + Quientin + Stanimir) be a single chapter and the other 2 arcs be their own separate chapters.
Keep story arcs to seprate chapters unless you have a clash in which case you can delimit paragraphs, but this should be done sparingly.
While on the subject of viewpoint characters.
Traditionally (this traditon is largely now ignored) POV character should not die at all, as they are witnesses to events and tell the story after it is complete. If you are going to kill off POV characters then you may as well have Third Party Omniscient (TPO) writing style. I find it more convenient personally as it allows a better flow of description and can add colour the character relating to the story cant see.
For eample GRRMartin could not have written Frodo's, or Sam's journey through Shelobs lair, because it involved two specific elements to TPO writing, first the main focus characters split during the journey, second Tolkien describes things that the hobbits were entirely ignorant of.
ASOIAF is a soap opera, most of the characters are high lords playing politics, with some local colour thrown in. It doesn't really work for high fantasy. It can do, but unless you have a sage explaining everything as you go along you will experience things the characters cant comprehend. Writing up that and making it understandable to the reader is very difficult.
Grey Templar wrote: I wouldn't make your characters "anonymous looking", you should at least give a rudimentary physical description when they are introduced.
"He was a brute of a man, tall and broad, with a square set jaw, but his eyes were kind brown orbs, the only hint of softness in him."
Something like that. Generic enough to where you can fill in the details, but you get the point across that he's a big guy.
Good call, but you can choose to make one character very nondescript, in which case rough size and gender is all that is claimed, plus the colour of skin hair and eyes showing. You coukld than have that person nondescript for a reason.
This is for an exception though.
In most books that I've read, the "nondescript" character usually falls into one of three categories: he/she is an assassin and will thus have different appearances throughout the book. He/she is a wizard/sorceress wearing robes and oversized hoods that cover almost all features. and finally He/she is so unimportant they are dead, or will die within a few pages-paragraphs
I've also seen some books (rare mind you, I'm rather selective of what I read) where the author goes out of their way to make sure you know that the character is nondescript... You know "he rode into town on an unassuming horse, wearing a plain coat, with very bland, nondescript features, he walked nondescriptly toward the nondescript local tavern" which... well, it's bad when that happens.
With the Magic, if I don't believe in magic, am I still affected by it?
From his previous comments, I would hazard a guess that it's a bit like Orks... Just because you're a Space Marine doesn't mean that the warp lightning from the Weird Boy isn't going to hurt any less because you dont believe in Ork magic
Basically. It will work like this it needs belief to work, but it also needs energy to function. If you believe in it that is all great and handy, but if you don''t have a battery what use are you going to be?
Belief in itself is a poor rational for magic. Its a very good rational for a magical level of a region. This goes back to biblical examples:
"And because of their unbelief, he (Jesus) couldn't do any miracles among them except to place his hands on a few sick people and heal them." Mark 6:5
If unbelief can partially shut down a deity, what will it do to a wizard. (This is not a religion thread, Biblical comment used as a mythic example NOT a religious one)
Now a better rational for actual use of magic is Will. Tolkien for example uses will a lot, when he describes magic at all, and the Will to perform magic is rare, can be drained and is hard to quantify.
Will is effectively still belief, but it has more oomph behind it.
For example if a bunch of villagers witness a spell, and they as a result all now genuinely believe in magic, can/will they all become magicians?
With the Magic, if I don't believe in magic, am I still affected by it?
From his previous comments, I would hazard a guess that it's a bit like Orks... Just because you're a Space Marine doesn't mean that the warp lightning from the Weird Boy isn't going to hurt any less because you dont believe in Ork magic
Basically. It will work like this it needs belief to work, but it also needs energy to function. If you believe in it that is all great and handy, but if you don''t have a battery what use are you going to be?
Belief in itself is a poor rational for magic. Its a very good rational for a magical level of a region. This goes back to biblical examples:
"And because of their unbelief, he (Jesus) couldn't do any miracles among them except to place his hands on a few sick people and heal them." Mark 6:5
If unbelief can partially shut down a deity, what will it do to a wizard. (This is not a religion thread, Biblical comment used as a mythic example NOT a religious one)
Now a better rational for actual use of magic is Will. Tolkien for example uses will a lot, when he describes magic at all, and the Will to perform magic is rare, can be drained and is hard to quantify.
Will is effectively still belief, but it has more oomph behind it.
For example if a bunch of villagers witness a spell, and they as a result all now genuinely believe in magic, can/will they all become magicians?
Good point. I could take that. Like if someone sees it done they could possibly do it, but they might have it backfire because they are not trained to do so. So Will is a better way to have magic. There might be spells or incantations and runes that have power that can be muttered for effect. And this belief and there will intermingle into something powerful. The combination of the two might be the magic user's source of absolute power.
Grey Templar wrote: Each point of view should have a substantial chunk of "screentime", at least enough to where the reader doesn't feel like they're being jerked back and forth. Find natural break points to swap.
You could make an individual point of view shorter if it makes sense, such as where story lines are converging on the same point.
Ah I see. Being Jerked/pulled around all over the place would be confusing. As I can see with my rough draft version.
Honestly, seriously, DONT have too many main characters.
Especially as if you write more books more characters will be added, stories evolve. So try and keep it down.
Most fantasy writers with long sagas end up with this problem, Tolkien had the discipline not to, but Martin has made the mistake and conformed regretting it and even vowing to add no more, Wheel of Time and other series also fill up with POV/main characters.
The only way to have lots of main characters in a serries and make it work is to do stand alone books, Diskworld series is a good example. Pratchet can have as many main characters as he likes, because he can write thme into their own stories, notic how Diskworld books are also a a lot shorter than the average fantasy fare, so he can afford. If you go the fantasy brick books which are common for serious fantasy you can get in over your head quickly.
Good point. I could take that. Like if someone sees it done they could possibly do it, but they might have it backfire because they are not trained to do so. So Will is a better way to have magic. There might be spells or incantations and runes that have power that can be muttered for effect. And this belief and there will intermingle into something powerful. The combination of the two might be the magic user's source of absolute power.
I'd suggest something a little more... Academic?? Perhaps, just seeing Gandalf shoot fireballs from his arse isn't enough to do it, and it WILL backfire on them due to imbalance, or not being trained. An idea could be to take sort of a Shaolin Monk approach to it... The wizards study and meditate on the various works of previous master magicians, and try to balance their Qi to the element, or a particular element they wish to use. For instance, if they are going into battle with undead (who are universally accepted to be weak to fire) a group of these wizards with the army would spend the day or two prior to battle meditating on the element of fire, and sort of attune themselves to the world. The will would come from the sheer power of these elements/power of magic that could/would sweep them away (possibly, if they lose control, they literally disintegrate and cease to exist, no body to bury or anything).
With the Magic, if I don't believe in magic, am I still affected by it?
From his previous comments, I would hazard a guess that it's a bit like Orks... Just because you're a Space Marine doesn't mean that the warp lightning from the Weird Boy isn't going to hurt any less because you dont believe in Ork magic
Basically. It will work like this it needs belief to work, but it also needs energy to function. If you believe in it that is all great and handy, but if you don''t have a battery what use are you going to be?
Belief in itself is a poor rational for magic. Its a very good rational for a magical level of a region. This goes back to biblical examples:
"And because of their unbelief, he (Jesus) couldn't do any miracles among them except to place his hands on a few sick people and heal them." Mark 6:5
If unbelief can partially shut down a deity, what will it do to a wizard. (This is not a religion thread, Biblical comment used as a mythic example NOT a religious one)
Now a better rational for actual use of magic is Will. Tolkien for example uses will a lot, when he describes magic at all, and the Will to perform magic is rare, can be drained and is hard to quantify.
Will is effectively still belief, but it has more oomph behind it.
For example if a bunch of villagers witness a spell, and they as a result all now genuinely believe in magic, can/will they all become magicians?
Good point. I could take that. Like if someone sees it done they could possibly do it, but they might have it backfire because they are not trained to do so. So Will is a better way to have magic. There might be spells or incantations and runes that have power that can be muttered for effect. And this belief and there will intermingle into something powerful. The combination of the two might be the magic user's source of absolute power.
Belief is a subset of will, you cannot have will where you have no belief, not with regards to a mental purpose, you can politically have a will based on falsehood (it happens all the time), but that is different.
Belief is not enough, but will is and it encompasses belief and knowledge (which may be factually incorrect), and focus. Best of all its both simple and extraordinarily complex at the same time. Magic should be like that, describable simply but requiring immense wisdom built up over time, or a lot of blood sacrifice or a dark pact to coax out of the universe.
Many creatures simply will not have enough will to do magic, humans for example.
When in doubt look to Tolkien, he got it spot on most of the time. The trick is not to follow the Master of Fantasy too closely.
There are alternatives though:
Secret Knowledge - Its not the powef that matters its knowing the incantations, will comes into it again, but if someone steal a spellbook they have access to the secret knowledge. This is always a good tie in.
Spiritual pacts -- perhaps it requires a demon or friendly spirit to enable any magic you do. This may or may not mean that all spellcasting is channeled/religious in nature.
Blood - Magic is in your blood, humans don't have much magic blood, elves a whiole lot more etc but some bloodlines with magical potential exist, or some rare people can be born magical (seventh son etc).
Most will perform better if Will is at least a factor, even if not the deciding factor.
Werebears
Werebears are similar to the werewolves. But only larger and more terrifying. Though lacking the speed of the werewolf. Werebears make up for it with large amount of strength and durability, they feel no pain, and unlike werewolves those that are werebears are fully aware that they are cursed. It is said that the first werebear was a Human called Yuron, he one day found a bear trapped and freed it. The Goddess of Beasts and the God of Nature descended upon him and offered him a choice, that he could safeguard all the animals of their kingdom or he could live forever.
He choose to safeguard all the animals and creatures of the God’s Kingdom, and he became the first werebear. The Werebears are not as vicious as Werewolves and are infact enemies of Werewolves. They are the allies of the Druids and the Werebears possess all their human intellect. They are also known for being able to transform into their forms whenever they wish, unlike werewolves.
They are known as the Guardians of the Forest, such as their Ancestor Yuron was. Who blessed many others with his power. They are often patrolling the forests for any who defile their forests.
I like this, however to make it really work make the main werebear in your story a female. First it hightens the difference between vulnerable to invulnerable, a she-bear will likely be no smaller than the male bear, but the human form will be.
Also it prevents any confusion or connect to Beorn.
I also use werebears and werewolves but go a different route.
Trolls
Trolls are extremely vicious creatures, hostile and known for attacking caravans so that they may plunder for shiny things. They are known for starting avalanches, and rock slides to distract their prey.
Nice, very good iconography, keep it up. I like the hunt for shiny things. Is the avalanche starting a mystic power or just a large shout while in mountains, avalanches and rock slides also need to be set up, by weather or rolling boulders uphill, and are preventable.
Flesh beasts are creatures of the God of Blood. Said to be formed from the flesh of hundreds of dead. They are creatures of hate and destruction. They are the enemies of all life. They have been known for killing dragons, trolls, giants, werewolves, and for entire caravans. The Flesh beasts travel by themselves and are always hungry. They come at the break of dawn, they hunt and stay near populated areas so that they will always have an ample amount of food.
An evil being that hunts specifically by day rather than night. I like the twist.
An ancient order that are inherently demons and former mortals that have gained the power of gods. The God of wealth though was turned into a dragon, his Demi God son took over his place as the God of Wealth, he uses his power unlike his father to feed his massed army of soldiers that are demons. He chooses those mortals that wish to not die and to make their lives worth some. They are on par with the knights of Obsidia. In fact the Knights of Obsidia drove the Golden Horde from their homeland. The two mercenary groups have been at war with each other ever since. The Golden Horde focus on magical abilities of water and ice. They are skilled at the powers they use and are known for being extremely needy in terms of money.
They are devious and extremely dangerous if not paid their full pensions. They only wish for one thing. Gold and wealth and fame and sex. They are skilled swordsmen, riders and if ever gathered into a single place are known for breaking entire battlements. Their cavarly and lancers are famed for being extremely powerful. Their terrifying charges have made entire battalions break.
The Demi-God only wants his forces to get large enough so that one day he may conquer a kingdom for his own. He is often very elusive in his Castle. The famed Palace of Silver, a Palace guarded by the Warrior of Greed. He surrounds himself with powerful guards and terrifying guardians. He even keeps the most exotic and beautiful women in the lands of Ör. He has many children that are within his palace many who have tried to kill him, but they are mortal and he is immortal. Where he kills them outright after they try to kill him.
There is a historical Golden Horde, one of the later Mongool kingdoms in what is now Russia.
You need to reword the above, its disjointed, but the imagination is fine.
Tasked with defending the final resting places of the dead. They are the guardians of the ancient dead. Created originally to protect artifacts. They are now commonly used to protect mass grave least a Necromancer gets their hands on a mass grave. Drauqr are the only exception to rule among mages to create beings from human remains. Drauqr are mages that are bound to the bones and armor of a long dead warrior. They are extremely powerful and practice their art while they guard their task given to them by The Mage Council.
They can still use their magics that they once used in their mortal lives, but now their magics are amplified. Their bodies are considered to be relics, which means their powers are tenfold. Drauqr are extremely potent and usually guard their tasks with another Drauqr. In times of great need the Drauqr are called upon for their knowledge and their powers.
None can tell you not to use Draugr, they have been in use in fantasy fro some time, so even if Bethesda/Zenimax try to be arseholes you can tell them they appeared before in 2000AD, as well as being Norse myth.
You are however describing Liches, not Draugr. Might as well get it right, call them liches, its what they are.
You could call them draugr anyway, but that isnt artistry, just ignorance.
The Cù Sìth are creatures or wolves that are mystical in origin. These creatures are ferocious and magical. They use poison and acidic magics. Their acidic magics are so potent that they can melt knights armor and flesh. The Cù Sìth are clever creatures and extremely intelligent, able to bring many to their deaths. They are known for teleporting and for having extremely terrible defenses compared to their wolf cousins a single sword swing could kill this creature. But the chances of actually hitting the Cù Sìth are very unlikely. Infact there have been a few demigods who were slain by a small group of Cù Sìth.
Donestre
Creatures that are said to have the strength of a lion and the power of a mage. They are feared creatures. As they are both man and lion. Having the face of a lion and intelligence of a man. They have powerful magics that very few know of. They usually guard ancient repistories of knowledge. They are known for being in conclaves, and small villages, which allow them to keep their numbers.
Lionmen, ok. You could try something other than lions though. One you have Thundercats, two you have Aslan both the individual God lion and the race from Traveller given the same name, Khajiit, Kilrathi, etc etc.
Lions could be one of their forms, perhaps your race could be 'half spareshifters' with Lions being one of their aspects, say rulership, want to be stronger become half bull, when you need to be faster half deer, see further/prophecy, half eagle. You can use all the fantasy animal geneotypes. It also ties in an Egyptian pantheon imagery.
Sounds to me this is a 'good' race, but one not to be messed with. Probably enemies of the Cu Sith and one of the few races that the acid wolves daren't try to attack.
A female werebear hmmm.
Interesting. I do have a female character that is quite awesome. And that so happens to be Wymond's Wife. Who is revealed to be an Oren Princess. Who are known to be. *ahem* Wild.
Cu Suth have poisonous skin and fur. If you touch one you die. Their bites are acidic and can melt through armor.
I also have of course have banshees.
Banshees are terrifying creatures from Maidens who died in complete and utter anguish and by a violent death. They have returned to the mortal coil to exact vengeance upon the world. They are often thought to be more than just ghosts, as they have a physical appearance.. They often hide in the body of a woman. When provoked the reveal their terrifying visage and use their craft to kill and silence them. But sometimes banshees can also hide in the visage of a beautiful woman. They sing songs and dance in the moon light and entice men unwillingly to their doom.
They are enemies to all of the woodland creatures, especially wolves.
I will continue writing the creatures. But their might be a banshee in the story as they like to go where there might be an upcoming apocalypse that might attract magical creatures.
And yeah Lionmen, ehhh. They were just sorta there. I threw them out during planning stages of my book as I found them so uninteresting and such a bore. They were then replaced by yetis (think aborigine inspired shamanism), goatmen and beast masters (Inspired by Beauty and the beast, except think an entire racce of the beast by themselves ruling the forests). Those are just ideas and they might be executed in short stories. As there is so much information to go over.
I also have nuclavee but they will only be mentioned briefly as they might be a bigger enemy after the events of the first book.
Grey Templar wrote: Each point of view should have a substantial chunk of "screentime", at least enough to where the reader doesn't feel like they're being jerked back and forth. Find natural break points to swap.
You could make an individual point of view shorter if it makes sense, such as where story lines are converging on the same point.
Ah I see. Being Jerked/pulled around all over the place would be confusing. As I can see with my rough draft version.
Honestly, seriously, DONT have too many main characters.
Especially as if you write more books more characters will be added, stories evolve. So try and keep it down.
Most fantasy writers with long sagas end up with this problem, Tolkien had the discipline not to, but Martin has made the mistake and conformed regretting it and even vowing to add no more, Wheel of Time and other series also fill up with POV/main characters.
The only way to have lots of main characters in a serries and make it work is to do stand alone books, Diskworld series is a good example. Pratchet can have as many main characters as he likes, because he can write thme into their own stories, notic how Diskworld books are also a a lot shorter than the average fantasy fare, so he can afford. If you go the fantasy brick books which are common for serious fantasy you can get in over your head quickly.
I have caught up with the thread now .
Its probably fortunate for SOIAF that it did get made into a TV show where having a couple dozen main characters can work. Otherwise, it is best if you give each storyline its own platform instead of mashing them all together.
With the Magic, if I don't believe in magic, am I still affected by it?
From his previous comments, I would hazard a guess that it's a bit like Orks... Just because you're a Space Marine doesn't mean that the warp lightning from the Weird Boy isn't going to hurt any less because you dont believe in Ork magic
Basically. It will work like this it needs belief to work, but it also needs energy to function. If you believe in it that is all great and handy, but if you don''t have a battery what use are you going to be?
Belief in itself is a poor rational for magic. Its a very good rational for a magical level of a region. This goes back to biblical examples: "And because of their unbelief, he (Jesus) couldn't do any miracles among them except to place his hands on a few sick people and heal them." Mark 6:5 If unbelief can partially shut down a deity, what will it do to a wizard. (This is not a religion thread, Biblical comment used as a mythic example NOT a religious one)
Now a better rational for actual use of magic is Will. Tolkien for example uses will a lot, when he describes magic at all, and the Will to perform magic is rare, can be drained and is hard to quantify. Will is effectively still belief, but it has more oomph behind it.
For example if a bunch of villagers witness a spell, and they as a result all now genuinely believe in magic, can/will they all become magicians?
Good point. I could take that. Like if someone sees it done they could possibly do it, but they might have it backfire because they are not trained to do so. So Will is a better way to have magic. There might be spells or incantations and runes that have power that can be muttered for effect. And this belief and there will intermingle into something powerful. The combination of the two might be the magic user's source of absolute power.
Belief is a subset of will, you cannot have will where you have no belief, not with regards to a mental purpose, you can politically have a will based on falsehood (it happens all the time), but that is different. Belief is not enough, but will is and it encompasses belief and knowledge (which may be factually incorrect), and focus. Best of all its both simple and extraordinarily complex at the same time. Magic should be like that, describable simply but requiring immense wisdom built up over time, or a lot of blood sacrifice or a dark pact to coax out of the universe. Many creatures simply will not have enough will to do magic, humans for example.
When in doubt look to Tolkien, he got it spot on most of the time. The trick is not to follow the Master of Fantasy too closely.
There are alternatives though:
Secret Knowledge - Its not the powef that matters its knowing the incantations, will comes into it again, but if someone steal a spellbook they have access to the secret knowledge. This is always a good tie in. Spiritual pacts -- perhaps it requires a demon or friendly spirit to enable any magic you do. This may or may not mean that all spellcasting is channeled/religious in nature. Blood - Magic is in your blood, humans don't have much magic blood, elves a whiole lot more etc but some bloodlines with magical potential exist, or some rare people can be born magical (seventh son etc).
Most will perform better if Will is at least a factor, even if not the deciding factor.
You could do a combination. Where there is a variety of ways to get it. Like you need to have both the blood and inctantions in order to use magic and your power is exceled to you by a god or another being of power.
Its probably fortunate for SOIAF that it did get made into a TV show where having a couple dozen main characters can work. Otherwise, it is best if you give each storyline its own platform instead of mashing them all together.
Yeah. I mean I wasn't planning on mashing them all together, but they all are subplots to the major storyline. They are just seeing things in different areas that are reacting to a major event.
You could do a combination. Where there is a variety of ways to get it. Like you need to have both the blood and inctantions in order to use magic and your power is exceled to you by a god or another being of power.
That is actually quite the idea... break magic down like a religion (sort of)... where, once upon a time, some super-badass godlike wizard had gaktons of power. He's long gone, but his 2 or 3 apprentices at the time of his death went on to become powerful mages in their own rights, each following the teaching of their master as they thought he'd want them to. Over time each of these schools passed on their own teachings and drifted further and further apart. So, one school of thought could be very stoic, all Zen monk meditations and balanced life. Another school could be the "feel the power of the magic, let it flow through you, ride it's currents but dont get sucked under". And the final school be something entirely different.
Obviously, I wouldn't have them be completely like a religion (where they each view each other as the "one true way", but rather they have a mutual respect, even if they feel their way is best)
Take a look at the current Brtetonnian army book. Look at King Louens heraldry.
It is simple enough that you can have a crude version on footmens shields and a progressively more ornate version for progressivbely wealthier knights and lords.
Your symbols are a flowery mess and fit only for elves and jewelery.
Don't think of your images as a .img or .gif, think of them as sewn onto surcoats or embroidered onto standards or painted onto shields. Can you see medival artists outside the elven kingdoms painting those onto the shields of warriors? I don't. But its still your story so....
in a medival fantasy setting, unless you have a magickal fabric printer, you could only have the above images for a human faction as the embroidery on a fashionable lady's dress, or something very special like a wedding gown, and the lady would have to be very rich as it would be difficult to make.
Embroiders can be very elaborate, as elaborate as this or more, celtic and norse embroidery was from surviving pictures of it, but it was also rare too rare to be standardised.
You could put junk like that on a royal standard, expensive one off item, but royal standards would need standardised (which is where we get the word) imagery. People will have problems recognising that flag in the heat of battle. Big red bird icon, ok, red bird like spirals don't cut it when you are looking for the moral support of the royal standard while avoiding being cut down by your opponent.
Orlanth wrote: Take a look at the current Brtetonnian army book. Look at King Louens heraldry. It is simple enough that you can have a crude version on footmens shields and a progressively more ornate version for progressivbely wealthier knights and lords.
Your symbols are a flowery mess and fit only for elves and jewelery. Don't think of your images as a .img or .gif, think of them as sewn onto surcoats or embroidered onto standards or painted onto shields. Can you see medival artists outside the elven kingdoms painting those onto the shields of warriors? I don't. But its still your story so....
in a medival fantasy setting, unless you have a magickal fabric printer, you could only have the above images for a human faction as the embroidery on a fashionable lady's dress, or something very special like a wedding gown, and the lady would have to be very rich as it would be difficult to make. Embroiders can be very elaborate, as elaborate as this or more, celtic and norse embroidery was from surviving pictures of it, but it was also rare too rare to be standardised.
You could put junk like that on a royal standard, expensive one off item, but royal standards would need standardised (which is where we get the word) imagery. People will have problems recognising that flag in the heat of battle. Big red bird icon, ok, red bird like spirals don't cut it when you are looking for the moral support of the royal standard while avoiding being cut down by your opponent.
Ah. I know those are just ideas, I was planning on making them solid looking. And not as ornate as they are now.
But thanks for the tip. The problem is that looking for the metaphorical meaning and the fact that it has to be simple is quite difficult. I will choose the serpernt for right now, and try to think of some metaphorical value from it. And test to see if it works.
Oh so houses symbols are just very simple compared to the heraldry. Ah okay.
So there isn't much difference between a shield heraldry compared to a flag heraldry.
But yeah thank you!
I will start experimenting on the idea.
Quite often yes... Thing to keep in mind is that often times, surcoats, tabards, Caparisons, etc were sewn by peasants or low ranking noble ladies, and depending on the area they may or may not be very skilled at this sort of thing. The royal arms of England would have been sewn/flown almost exactly as on the shield because it's the king of fething England! But that hedge knight, or newly knighted bloke probably wouldn't get the same level of craftsmanship on his stuff (plus, his shield is probably painted by himself, or a squire... and the squire probably has less skill/desire to do a good job than the women doing the sewing )
I am using it as more of a guide. More of an idea to help me write my story so it is concise and understandable.
I use it merely as a guide. Not as what I should do.
But my questions are various....
How many mentors should I have for adith, I currently have two in the beginning and the mood sort of shifts and near the end it is only one mentor. Stanimir (Loyal Captain of the Guard) and Quientin (The Merc), one is inspired by money, the other not so.
I have currently written it to follow Adith's side of things, and he sees Quientin as more the jerky mercenary, and Stanimir as the loyal friend. Where stanimir aides Adith throughout the story and even running a few errands. I mean my entire appeal is to make Adith a Kantian ethicist. So he follows his life by not using people, but he is still not great guy. He breaks his own rules, and is quite inconsistent because he's human. He's never purely this or that.
Do you guys think that is interest?
A person who flip flops? Due to a deep emotional problem?
Hey guys I have written up the first chapter into its first draft ^.^ (Which means its typed up, not written)
I've also picked up Chris Voggler's The Writer's journey and have started pondering a few ideas.
As I want to follow a linear line that doesn't go all over the place.
So i am planning on making the character go through trials and through this we start to understand what is going on.
So here are a few questions:
Should 1. Make the character unreliable? 2. What Archetypes should I execute in the story? 3. For more research on medevil things what should I look up? 4. In terms of the creatures, should I maintain it a minimal levels to ensure the reader is not overwhelmed?
5. Should I make it grimmer than I currently have it? (A few characters have died, but nothing that yells. I am a depressing story!)
6. What should I read to get a better grip of the idea of 'grim'? (any anime, books, movies that I should watch or read?)
7. What do you guys recommend in terms of character arcs. Should I make the character open up as the story goes on. Or keep a lot of his back story as a mystery until later on? I mean before the final fight or should I do it in the middle or the beginning of a story?
8. What attracts an audience a mysterious background with an interesting character or something else?
9. I am currently trying to figure out how to make the design of the book?
10. I've been reading quite a bit lately, and something I have found out is that most stories have pieces of someone's life scattered into, illusions to their own life, to try and garner the readers attention to pry some similarities between the character, and the reader.
11. Should I include poetry into this story? Like have some short blurbs of my own poetry to kind of make someone start thinking about their meaning?
12. How does everyone think of the hero's journey? Should I follow it and its structure?
13. Personal note: just watched the show called Cowboy Bebop, holy gak. It was amazing.
TV Tropes Will Ruin Your Life is a metatrope to be wary of. Think to hard about these kinds of things, and your writing will suffer. It's good for critics, messy for writers. Don't think to hard about what tropes, motifs, symbols, or archetypes you want to include. Just write the story and those things will sort themselves out.
6. What should I read to get a better grip of the idea of 'grim'? (any anime, books, movies that I should watch or read?)
The Black Comapny series can be pretty grim (and not in the sort of black comedy way 40k is grim, I mean real grim), as well as A Song of Ice and Fire.
10. I've been reading quite a bit lately, and something I have found out is that most stories have pieces of someone's life scattered into, illusions to their own life, to try and garner the readers attention to pry some similarities between the character, and the reader.
This is the outcome of the saying "Write what you know."
This isn't so much purposeful as completely unavoidable. You can't not put some of yourself into your writing. It's inevitable. You'll probably notice it especially when you spontaneously come up with settings and character's on the spot to fill an immediate need in the story. You often pull on things you already know or are familiar with when that happens (and there's nothing wrong with that).
TV Tropes Will Ruin Your Life is a metatrope to be wary of. Think to hard about these kinds of things, and your writing will suffer. It's good for critics, messy for writers. Don't think to hard about what tropes, motifs, symbols, or archetypes you want to include. Just write the story and those things will sort themselves out.
6. What should I read to get a better grip of the idea of 'grim'? (any anime, books, movies that I should watch or read?)
The Black Comapny series can be pretty grim (and not in the sort of black comedy way 40k is grim, I mean real grim), as well as A Song of Ice and Fire.
10. I've been reading quite a bit lately, and something I have found out is that most stories have pieces of someone's life scattered into, illusions to their own life, to try and garner the readers attention to pry some similarities between the character, and the reader.
This is the outcome of the saying "Write what you know."
This isn't so much purposeful as completely unavoidable. You can't not put some of yourself into your writing. It's inevitable. You'll probably notice it especially when you spontaneously come up with settings and character's on the spot to fill an immediate need in the story. You often pull on things you already know or are familiar with when that happens (and there's nothing wrong with that).
Haha. Well. I am following what I've been told so far.
So I just think about and create characters. And then I go back and look at it and deconstruct my work, to see if the messages are hit upon.
I think one of the worst things about English classes in the US honestly is how they drill students on Theme (while not even touching on things like structure, tone, word choice, motif etc). It's bad for developing writers. If you write a story, the theme will form itself. You don't need to put it there. Trying to put it there just makes it feel forced.
My advice would be; Write the story -> Wait 1 Month -> Editing Round 1
Editing;
Print your story off and get some colored highlighters (at least 5 different colors). Make yourself a key matching a color to Dialogue, Monologue, Description, Narration, and use the fifth to highlight each proper name the first time you see it. Add that proper noun (persons, places, events, etc) to a list in a notebook or something, trust me, especially in fantasy and scifi, you're going to end up making up a lot of proper nouns, you'll want a way to keep track of them all.
First go through Dialogue and Monologue together. Make sure that it all meshes together, and the characters are consistent in the way they speak and think to themselves and others. You can get really really in depth with this if you want, giving each one distinctive ways of speaking (long sentences? short sentences? Big words? little words? etc) or you can just shoot for consistency across the work. This will also help you isolate conversations without anything in your way so you can ensure they flow logically with one another.
Next go through your descriptions. Things like how characters look, how settings are described, etc. You'll probably want to spend a lot of time here, as descriptions are a huge part of fantasy and you'll want to be sharp with them working them and reworking them over and over again.
Last is narration, and by this I just mean sentences that describe what is happening but don't necessarily represent a characters 'speech' in the story. Just go through it and make sure it all looks good. Be sure that when you are describing actions and events that you are concise so the reader can understand.
Once you've done that, you should have a very strong idea of the story, it's contents, and how it presents those contents. The themes and symbols that have arisen from the natural writing process will slap you in the face during the above steps. Trust me, they'll stand out and you'll see them.
Now you do Editing step 2;
Enhance those themes and symbols (not too much) when you rewrite the entire thing from start to finish. Keep your print out and notes with you while you do this. I'm not saying completely restart from scratch just type the entire story out all over again. You will find natural points to enhance your theme while doing this, as well as stumble into many ideas probably that will help improve your story.
Trust me. Writing a story is the easiest part of writing. Editing the story is the nightmare (and yes, you will want to edit, the story and your work will benefit amazingly).
LordofHats wrote: I think one of the worst things about English classes in the US honestly is how they drill students on Theme (while not even touching on things like structure, tone, word choice, motif etc). It's bad for developing writers. If you write a story, the theme will form itself. You don't need to put it there. Trying to put it there just makes it feel forced.
My advice would be; Write the story -> Wait 1 Month -> Editing Round 1
Editing;
Print your story off and get some colored highlighters (at least 5 different colors). Make yourself a key matching a color to Dialogue, Monologue, Description, Narration, and use the fifth to highlight each proper name the first time you see it. Add that proper noun (persons, places, events, etc) to a list in a notebook or something, trust me, especially in fantasy and scifi, you're going to end up making up a lot of proper nouns, you'll want a way to keep track of them all.
First go through Dialogue and Monologue together. Make sure that it all meshes together, and the characters are consistent in the way they speak and think to themselves and others. You can get really really in depth with this if you want, giving each one distinctive ways of speaking (long sentences? short sentences? Big words? little words? etc) or you can just shoot for consistency across the work. This will also help you isolate conversations without anything in your way so you can ensure they flow logically with one another.
Next go through your descriptions. Things like how characters look, how settings are described, etc. You'll probably want to spend a lot of time here, as descriptions are a huge part of fantasy and you'll want to be sharp with them working them and reworking them over and over again.
Last is narration, and by this I just mean sentences that describe what is happening but don't necessarily represent a characters 'speech' in the story. Just go through it and make sure it all looks good. Be sure that when you are describing actions and events that you are concise so the reader can understand.
Once you've done that, you should have a very strong idea of the story, it's contents, and how it presents those contents. The themes and symbols that have arisen from the natural writing process will slap you in the face during the above steps. Trust me, they'll stand out and you'll see them.
Now you do Editing step 2;
Enhance those themes and symbols (not too much) when you rewrite the entire thing from start to finish. Keep your print out and notes with you while you do this. I'm not saying completely restart from scratch just type the entire story out all over again. You will find natural points to enhance your theme while doing this, as well as stumble into many ideas probably that will help improve your story.
Trust me. Writing a story is the easiest part of writing. Editing the story is the nightmare (and yes, you will want to edit, the story and your work will benefit amazingly).
Ah okay.
I will be writing more, and just trying to finish it. And the once it is finished, I will edit it over and over.
I will focus on the story and then go back to read over it.
And I agree the way we are taught in scholls about writing characters and themes is stupid.
)
Please don't think I'm being negative at all, getting feedback is what all writers need so I hope this helps.
