The Quick Questions About World Building Thread

There's no reason some cult leader can't show up and say "I've solved religion here is the new religion" amass a bunch of followers, and then die but have enough of a continuity of leadership in place that people stay supportive of the religion until someone decides it's the official religion of the station and starts going after people who don't profess to support it.

That's how religions form and come into power, after all.

Some people just need some kind of religion.

Does anyone have tips for designing a fictional government?

I'm deliberately trying to avoid modeling it after real life systems like the U.S. system or the parliamentary system found in European countries.

I figure people in the future would have different ideas about government and politics.

I just need to know where to start.

That's amazingly open-ended, I'm afraid.

Let's start with some questions. Do we have a concept like "laws"?

I would imagine so, since there is civilization. They might not be the same as nations functionally, but I imagine they would still have laws and such.

OK. Who - if anyone - sets the laws, enforces them, decides during disagreements on how to apply them?

Oh, I do fictional governments! (since you're talking about systems, I assume you're actually talking about regimes, a government is a group of power-holders within a regime, and regimes are a system within a state. Correct me if I'm wrong about what you're looking for, I will use the common usage of government from here on in this post.)

So generally the first thing I do is I figure out the general history of the place during the founding, and figure out the factions involved in the founding. No real characters are needed, just the general movements, especially if this is all historical. Then try to figure out which of those factions got more of what they wanted in the process.

If it's not a nation that broke away or suddenly declared itself, but is a preexisting nation that gradually shifted to what it is, (like the UK kind of), then what factions shaped it on the way there? What conflicts happen in the nation? Obviously most of the conflicts in any place are roughly the same, generally there's a conservative faction with a few subdivisions, a left-leaning faction with a few subdivisions, the wealthy who form their own very specific faction, and the authoritarians who may identify with either or both of the left and the conservative faction.

Essentially, the first question you're going to ask is "what conflicts were there when this regime came into being", because those conflicts are going to remain prominent for a very long time to come. For example, if a regime comes out of a compromise between a highly authoritarian faction, a vaguely left-leaning faction, and the left-leaning faction is dominant, you're probably going to get a highly democratic system with frequent elections, but with easy to exploit elements such as a lot of executive power, and lots of unelected positions, with power to appoint those positions concentrated layers away from the people (sort of like how the supreme court used to work in the US, and still does to an extent. It used to be that state legislatures would vote for senators, who would vote for the nominee. Now people vote for senators directly, but the senators vote for the nominee. It's about getting power as far from the general public as possible by putting layers in the way.)

Generally a regime will have an executive. Some anarchist regimes don't have an executive, or even an official leader, but generally there will be some "first among equals" thing at the very least. Most regimes have a face. There have been some attempts to separate the head of state (who's the face of the country) and head of government (who's in charge of the country). These always fail, and the head of government tends to effectively be the head of state in all but name. (See the UK, where the queen has very little real power, but is the head of state, even though she's not really treated as making decisions or particularly relevant outside of tabloids.) So, how does your regime pick the executive?

There will always be a legislative branch. A government can't do anything without a way to handle making new laws. So how does that work? Is it a very direct system where anyone can vote on the laws directly? Is it representative where they raise people up to vote on the laws? Does the ruled populace have much say at all? Is the legislative branch meaningfully separate from the other branches?

There tends to be a judiciary also, though its independence and power varies a lot depending what legal system the regime uses. There's essentially four types of law that can be mixed and matched. There's Civil Law (where the laws tend to be specific and courts are there primarily to decide whether or not it applies in a certain case. They're very case by case.) Common Law, (where precedent matters a lot more, rulings in previous cases tell you how you're expected to rule in current ones), Religious Law (where the laws and process for figuring out how to handle them come from religious things. You can see this sort in a lot of countries in the middle east, africa, and south asia, usually mixed with other systems, but occasionally not.) and Traditional Law (which is non-formalized, very diverse, often contradictory, and most closely related to Common Law.) However, some places abolish the judiciary entirely and enforce laws directly through the police or the military, without trials, and in some places, the judiciary exists and is largely powerless, or is part of the other branches.

Those are the main branches of every government, then you can mix and match historical government setups with them. Decide how many chambers the legislature has, decide whether the executive is part of the legislature or its own thing, what's up with the judiciary, etcetera. This is where you look into where the regime came from, and figure out how that would interact with the setup.

So basically, we could have entire threads about governments. I suppose the first questions you need to answer are What circumstances was the government made? and What did the creators of said government want to do?

Not go into too much detail I decided that a Dire Human is a Goliath, and a Dire Elf is a Cernunnos. I think I'll need to establish terms for Dire Dwarf, Dire Orc, Dire Mermaid, and the paradoxical dire halfling.

Does anybody have suggestions?

A Dire Halfling would be a...Dwarf? A dire Orc would be kind of Trollish.

Depends on what the term "Dire" is supposed to mean. But if it's supposed to be a bigger, more threatening thing:

>I think I'll need to establish terms for Dire Dwarf, Dire Orc, Dire Mermaid, and the paradoxical dire halfling.

A Dire Dwarf would essentially be a human. Physically, more akin to a Tolkien Troll. Thematically, a dire dwarf is either an Ent or a Dragon.

Dire Orcs: Orcs are already Dire Goblins

Dire Mermaid: Greek Nymphs are essentially the more badass version in every way.

Dire Halfing: a human, basically. Thematically, though, more akin to a Warcraft Nightelf (thin, nature-connected, stealth).

Edited by devak on Jul 31st 2022 at 10:07:43 AM

How do you get over realism? I have this obsession of thinking about realism in my settings and want to know how to stop worrying about it.

Currently, I am working on a setting for a space opera. I'm aiming for it to be on the harder side of sci-fi, but still utilizing many of the classic space opera tropes.

I decided I want my setting to hard when it comes to space physics, barring some obvious exceptions such as FTL travel being possible and the existence of artificial gravity. Thus, while most ships are equipped with artificial gravity generators, if it fails, then the crew will be floating around the ship and will have to worry about things like losing bone density if they spend too long without enough gravity. I guess I am aiming moreso for realism in implications and consistency: there is fantastical technology in the setting, but if FTL or artificial gravity stop working, the real world rules are reinstated.

I'm kinda on the fence with cloaking devices, but I think that might start to push the hard sci-fi a little.

One way to go about it is to think as if you are writing in a fantasy alternate universe, like Star Wars. There are surprisingly good examples of hard sci-fi that are like this; for example, some of Ted Chiang's works are set in alternate universes that are completely different from ours, some based on outdated scientific theories or mythological beliefs, and the writer explores scientific concepts within those settings.

OK, this is a bit of a pet peeve of mine, but: I think Artificial Gravity does push the envelope of hard sci-fi & people tend to underestimate how much it does.

We have done enough mathematics to come up with FTL schemes within general relativity that do not need to violate any of the known laws of physics - and can't necessarily be used for time travelling -, but there aren't even hypothetical artificial gravity schemes other than centrifugal gravity - which has lots of physical and engineering constraints - and using large masses. And none of these would work on planetary surfaces, anyway, so it raises the question why all planets have Earth-like gravity.

You'll need to spend much more effort justifying the artificial gravity than the FTL, is what I am saying.

My setting does have the advantage that radiation and toxic atmospheres are so widespread that you aren't going to get anywhere without good medical treatments, and if you have these you can simply treat the effects of low gravity medically and skip all the artificial gravity stuff.

In all fairness, my understanding is that our knowledge of gravity is still somewhat limited. Further, we don't know what advancements and workarounds might yet be developed—some of which might be quite unexpected. (See for example, I think, the transistor.)

Thus, the fact that we don't yet have an idea as to how artificial gravity might be achieved doesn't to my mind make it seem necessarily unlikely that it will nevertheless one day be done.

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised at all if we do eventually develop a means of producing artificial gravity.

@Count_Spatula:

I think that minseok might have a good idea, there: Instead of worrying about whether what you describe is realistic with reference to our universe, look to whether it's realistic with reference to the universe in which it takes place.

Otherwise, perhaps it might be worth asking yourself: Why does realism concern you? (As opposed to things like verisimilitude or internal consistency.)

Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Aug 1st 2022 at 12:08:37 PM

I've frequently been accused of taking a hardcore stance on realism when asked about various sci-fi ideas, and that might lead to the impression that I reject any stories that aren't firmly grounded in modern scientific knowledge. This is not true. Rather, if you ask the question, "Is this realistic," I feel obliged to answer with as much accuracy as possible.

This doesn't mean you must adhere to realism in your writing. What it means is that you should decide what level of hardness you want your work to have that is consistent with the stories you want to tell. Writing is about storytelling, first and foremost.

Do you want to have grandiose space battles and characters commuting between planets for lunch? You're writing Space Opera, so own it. Don't maintain the pretense of hardness just so you can claim it in your synopsis or whatever.

As noted above, far more important than accuracy are verisimilitude and internal consistency. Roughly speaking, verisimilitude means, "Does this make sense? Can I understand how it works using simple logic?" Internal consistency means, "Does this work the same way every time it comes up?" Follow those two principles and the rest will work out.

Edited by Fighteer on Aug 1st 2022 at 11:34:13 AM

I think it's because I keep hearing about how various sci fi and futuristic concepts would work IRL, and so my setting is more about tweaking our own universe to make those things work. Kinda like with Gundam: mechas aren't exactly practical, but there is an in-universe justification for their use.

Also, since I like space, I figured I should strive to make it work similarly to how IRL space works and don't want to seem like I am picking and choosing which physics still apply.

Edited by Count_Spatula on Aug 1st 2022 at 10:26:11 AM

Also, you can take the time-consuming route and do a lot of research. This is how I found out that my moon-around-red dwarf-around-pulsar setting will have spectacularly coloured skies.

My problem with artificial gravity is a) unlike FTL it's not necessary for most stories to work and b) unlike FTL there isn't even a hypothetical mechanism to get it within general relativity, and there aren't any major deviations of gravity from GRT that we know about.

Sure, but I doubt that many of those who discuss such things would be likely to eschew a work that wouldn't work in our world.

Considering or discussing how a concept might fit or be implemented within our world can be a fun diversion, or potentially an aid to suspension of disbelief or a contribution towards immersion in the work. And I suspect that is for such reasons as these that fans tend to engage in it.

I see; fair enough. And I could see that producing interesting work, I do think!

But if that tweaking is starting to become a problem—is, for example, preventing you from actually writing the work itself—then is it really worth it?

And yet there are, I think, plenty of works that feature mechas and that don't bother with the matter of realism—and that have no shortage of enthusiastic audience.

That's fair. The two matters that you raise aren't sticking points for me, personally—but I can see how they might be for another, I do think.

@Fighteer: Let me simply say: Well said. ^_^

Thanks.

In my mind, artificial gravity is like time travel or magical resurrection in that it raises far more questions than works employing it generally prefer to answer. We must remember that it is, first and foremost, a genre convention invented for live-action media that allows actors to stand and walk normally in sets without incredibly expensive zero-g rigs and visual effects work.

One of the most influential hard sci-fi films of all time, 2001: A Space Odyssey, was as accurate as it was possible to be at the time, simulating microgravity when there was no way to avoid it and employing the most realistic possible explanations otherwise. Examples include Velcro shoes for walking on the decks of spacecraft and Centrifugal Gravity for the habitation quarters of long-duration vessels.

It was known at the time that the rotating ring of Discovery was far too small to work as shown due to Coriolis effects, but that's not something that was considered worth fixing for the sake of the tiny fraction of audience members who would notice.

In turn, one of the most influential soft sci-fi films of all time, Star Wars, ignored the problem completely and just had people walking around on spaceships as if they were in a sound stage on Earth. (Weird, I know.) George Lucas and his production team understood that trying to explain any of this would raise more questions than it solved, so they (correctly) waved their hands and said, "Don't worry about it."

The problem, of course, is that fans wanted explanations and invented all sorts of crazy shit in their heads that they vomited all over their fics, including the Star Wars Expanded Universe (which is, let's face it, basically a collection of licensed fan-fiction). Thus, we have this tangled web of pseudo-scientific nonsense allegedly justifying all of the technology that is seen on screen even while that technology itself is barely consistent within each show, never mind from one show to another.

With the above examples, we illustrate two opposite yet equally valid approaches. First, be as accurate as you can be, recognizing that doing so will significantly constrain certain avenues of storytelling while adding entirely new ones to explore. Second, ignore accuracy and tell the stories you want, counting on audiences to go along for the ride while realizing that some portion of them will freak out.

Edited by Fighteer on Aug 1st 2022 at 11:55:48 AM

I would like to present what i call the Interstellar Effect: if you talk a big deal about the realism of one particular aspect of your story, people start to expect that level of detail across your entire story.

(named after Interstellar, where talk about realistic blackhole renders made people expect a hard sci fi story, and it really isn't).

because fundamentally, if you the writer point out or explain something with a realistic and reasonable explanation, you are telling your audience that you thought about this. And in turn, it sets an expectation of the level of realism (or more precisely, the level of suspension of disbelief) for the audience.

>We must remember that it is, first and foremost, a genre convention invented for live-action media that allows actors to stand and walk normally in sets without incredibly expensive zero-g rigs and visual effects work.

Yup. Shields exist as a genre convention because physical models were expensive and damaging them was a big no-no. shields are a fairly easy effect to add in post.

Big glowy bolts of energy (e.g. plasma weapons) exist mostly because they're recognizeable on screen. Big glowly beams too. Energy weapons also avoid nasty questions about ammunition.

F Tl exists because real space travel is slow and many writers want to write a specific kind of story. Star Wars would be unwatchable if it followed realistic light speed limits.

It's also why this remains very common in both TV and Cinema, but is much less common in other media such as books.

Edited by devak on Aug 1st 2022 at 6:04:40 PM

Inertial damping exists because spaceships accelerating fast enough to go anywhere useful in the time scales observed in these sorts of works would paint their human occupants across the bulkheads as fine pink goo.

Weirdly, older sci-fi works often took more painstaking efforts to justify these tropes. Another seminal film, Forbidden Planet, shows the crew of a spaceship employing some sort of stasis field in order to survive the acceleration needed to travel at a large fraction of the speed of light. The novel Rama II discusses the need for fluid-filled cocoons to cushion against the thousands of Gs of acceleration of an alien spacecraft, and even with those extraordinary measures there are physiological side-effects.

Edit: Force fields also serve the purpose of allowing ships to engage in combat without needing extensive repairs afterwards, so you can have non-lethal skirmishes and then move the plot along.

Now I'm about to blow your minds. With exactly one exception, shields are never used to defend against an attack in the first four Star Trek feature films. Every time ships do battle on-screen their shields are not up for one reason or another. The only exception is V'Ger's first attack on the Enterprise in Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

This belies the idea that shields are a VFX shortcut to having to show battle damage on models, implying the opposite: that those films didn't have the FX skill or budget to animate them.

Edited by Fighteer on Aug 1st 2022 at 7:24:38 AM

Found this video about bad flags on youtube (several of which are logos, all of which aren't national flags) and it had got thinking. Would it be considerable plausible for a corporate owned nation to use the business' logo as its flag of if it would be seen as parodic mockery or just plain unrealitic?

Depends on how the country starts out. If it's a company that founded the country, it might well be the logo.

If they bought out an existing country, they'll probably keep the flag. (Or if they're particularly egotistical, they might change it to their logo, but it's most likely they'd keep the flag.)

I mean you have things like Gaddafi's Libya deciding "let's have a flag that's just a green rectangle with no other characteristics" so it's certainly plausible that a flag could be changed to something that's not great.

>Weirdly, older sci-fi works often took more painstaking efforts to justify these tropes.

To be honest, it's not that weird. Early stories would have to defend their choices, but these sci fi staples are sci fi staples for a reason. If you have any sci fi property and you show shields, people just go "oh so shields exist in this universe" rather than "what's going on". Hell, even the specific term of "Shields" meaning a thin hard-light barrier is thoroughly accepted.

>This belies the idea that shields are a VFX shortcut to having to show battle damage on models, implying the opposite: that those films didn't have the FX skill or budget to animate them.

The cost breakdown for movies and shows is a bit different. A movie can do one-off big fights at the end. But a series has a limited amount of models (and very limited budgets), and thus cannot afford to wreck a model.