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

 Grey Templar wrote:

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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

But there are a few things bothering me.

How large can a mercenary force be?

How old is too old to be reasonable?

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?

A Motte and Bailey interested.

How large can a mercenary force be?

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.

Plus the French were just as likely to fight each other as an invader.

The English had a sense of nationality. In France, they had little national identity at the time.

If you were invading France, you could buy off some of the Feudal lords to your side(or at least to not fight you) and focus on them one by one.

Ironically, this division also meant that the English couldn't fully win. Too fractured to resist, too fractured to hold.

 LordofHats wrote:

Is two thousand men for a large house or no?

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.

 Asherian Command wrote:


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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:


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.

 Asherian Command wrote:

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

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

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.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

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.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:


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

 Asherian Command wrote:

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?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

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.

*removeD*

*DELETED*

 Asherian Command wrote:


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.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:


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?

 Asherian Command wrote:

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.

 Asherian Command wrote:

Questions:

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.

 Paradigm wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Questions:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

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


Eastern Side



World of Or


These are rough drafts and I will try to make it on a computer program over time. I might do something special.

I am also working on the houses currently.

*REMOVED*