The Quick Questions About World Building Thread

Con[n]or means "wolf lover". And Conan means "little wolf".

Plus more from Behind the Name. You could also go for a meaning including the moon - though that tends to be feminine - or ironically go with something like Alexander "Protector of Man".

Where on the Aerith and Bob scale did you want to fall?

edited 21st Oct '15 4:51:57 PM by Luthen

Somewhere in the middle, I guess. Like I said, I'd like something meaningful, without being too outlandish or on-the-nose.

In that case, i'd second the Connor suggestion

Unfortunately I'm french, and "Connor" sounds an awful lot like "connard", which means a**hole. So... no.

edited 22nd Oct '15 8:38:52 AM by Aetol

I'd probably avoid the Animal names and take names from related concepts. Something like Silverman, Titan, Enceladus, Gamymede (the last three being moons). or Try a Steven Ulysses Perhero take on things, using the first letters of both names to spell a word related to werewolves.

edited 22nd Oct '15 4:29:23 PM by MorningStar1337

Going with Luthen's suggestion for "names related to the moon," you've got Chandra for a man's name.

Maybe this question is a bit too meta, but I'd like to know: Would this subforum be appropriate for gathering information on an entirely real-world setting for use in a creative work? Or would a thread like that go in some other particular subforum?

OTC or World Building?

Do you suppose an HDI of about .6 (slightly better than Syria but worse than India) would make sense for a Napoleonic-era country that's just industrialising?

Does it makes sense for actual nation founding history turned into mythology if the history is long enough?

yeah, if the actual history of the founding is fractured or lost enough that the civilization needs to fill in the gaps with whatever they can

another option is to interpret historical events leading to the founding of the nation, in a spiritual way that fits into their religion/myths.

If there's a destructive enough event, along with more than a few centuries, history can definitely turn into myth. (Compare the actual history of the Bronze Age Mediterranean with later Greek ideas like "Cyclopean architecture" and the Trojan War. Having knowledge of the written word completely forgotten certainly helps.)

Alternatively, history can turn into propaganda which can then turn into myth. There most certainly was a Lugal Gilgamesh of Uruk, but it's reasonably certain that he didn't actually slay giants and flying bulls, get propositioned by the goddess of love, or almost discover immortality, but kings in that period and region liked to brag about their accomplishments, even if they were completely made up.

In an interstellar community, what will Thailand do if the government has found out that someone outside of Earth has run afoul of its lese majeste laws?

Jack shit because in an interstellar Earth there's no way Thailand would have any kind of political pull.

Hell it probably wouldn't exist at that point in time.

In terms of political intervention, that is right, but the law enforcement, general public and extraterrestrial policies won't just sit back. What will happen within Thailand itself in such scenario?

Does Thailand even do anything if someone outside of Thailand commits lèse majesté ? AFAIK you aren't in trouble unless you actually go to Thailand.

edited 29th Jan '16 4:01:51 AM by Aetol

Hello, armature writer and world builder here, I have a couple of QQ for you all:

Is it possible to write up a multi-species community/government while avoiding any racial/social commentary?

What's the best way to avoid a Planet of Hats for any given species?

Averting Planet of Hats seems simple on paper, You just have to make sure that their culture doesn't center around one specific trait or thing.

Cool, thanks. I thought I best to avoid things like "my species does this" or "as you know we [species] prefer..."

Is this good too?

Well, as you know, we rarely go around saying "we humans usually do..." I mean, of course there aren't other species for us to do that, but I think unless it's an anatomical or neural aspect of their biology ("Y'know, we Saturnians usually fly wherever we want to go. Your human cars are so tight."), they are usually going to be speaking in terms of culture, as we do. Of course, it's different when you have other races talk about a third race, or supermassive civilizations that include most of the known world's members of a certain species (which, depending on how it's done, is a kind of Planet of Hats; like a literal planet in a space opera, for example).

So, uh, as Morning Star said, it's not that hard to avoid Planet of Hats unless you... uh, write yourself in a corner? Like, wrongly picturing what you're writing despite not wanting to write a Planet of Hats (failing to provide enough distinction between members of a certain race for your readers). For example, having too much of two unrelated species talking about a third without actually depicting how that third is ("All these orcs we keep fighting are so savage, right elf bro?" "Indeed my dwarf friend, indeed."). I'm having trouble trying to picture someone failing to avoid Planet of Hats. Maybe I just don't know said examples.

As for avoiding racial/social commentary... I think in the same way you'd write a story about humans of different groups working together without social commentary (which I realize isn't very good advice). You don't need to bring it up if it isn't a theme of your work, in fact you don't even need racist characters if you want to. They aren't humans, but... if they were, there could be unconscious bias showing up on your writing, whether benign or malign. Thus, I'm not sure they'd be an issue, depending on your familiarity with/opinion on standard fictional races (e.g.: the language used by the elf and the dwarf up here).

Don't worry, that helped a lot! :) Thank you. Now, I have another QQ:

Is a lizard alien who was a former gladiator but has since renounced his bloodspilling past and now finds work as a Space Trucker a little too absurd?

... Anything can be mundane or absurd if you execute it correctly. Not literally anything, of course, because you can't literally control your audience's reaction.

Is it supposed to be absurd or not?

No, its not suppose to be.

In a competitive puzzle game where players control their playfield separately, is it fair to force equal distribution of piece types on both players?

It worked for Chess