# Main culture/civilization in my novel... feedback welcome



## Alex97 (Apr 11, 2012)

Thought I'd talk a bit about the main civilization in my book which my main character is a member of, but first a little info on the overall theme of the book.  

It's similar to Lord of the Rings in a lot of ways and that's where I've drawn a lot of ideas from however the cultures are quite different.  It's set in a medieval-ish fictional world with quite diverse cultures.

The main culture is the Orakean league which is based largely on ancient Greece, however in more of a medieval period but still with classical elements.  The league itself consists of five city states which are all independent but work together for common gain.

The city state my main character is from is called Lysanda.  It's basically a remodelled version of Sparta.  All males join the military and spend most of their lives training and fighting from a young age.  However I didn't want them to seem uncivilized and unable to do other times.  Their education consists of maths, literature...  Most men also take up an art form of some sort.

The city is ruled by a king supported by a council which is split into three main levels:
General Council - consists of all adult citizens within the military (don't know if women should be included all though women will definitely have influence probably financially sine the men are all soldiers)
Elite council - consists of officers and influential members of city
Elder council - The ten company leader (generals) and the most powerful people in the city.

Sorry if this post is a bit long. If anyone shows any interest I'll post some more since about Lysanda and other places within the novel then maybe talk about the plot on a separate topic.


----------



## Queshire (Apr 11, 2012)

ha~~~ it'd help if you'd actually, you know, ask us questions or something...

If you're looking for insipration for sort of a warrior philosopher type culture, then I suggest taking a look at Samurai Japan. In addition to learning how to fight with a sword, they learned about tea ceremony, flower arrange, calligraphy, all sorts of cultural stuff.


----------



## Alex97 (Apr 11, 2012)

aha fair enough, I was just wondering what people thought of it in general rather than anything specifically at the moment in order to gain some feedback about whether the culture sounds good or not.  Sorry for not being specific enough.

I drew the idea for philosophical warriors partially from the Samurai.  I like the idea of the spiritual side of the Samurai (Bushido) and the fact that they did more than just fight.

What I failed to explain is that their actual culture is similar to that of ancient Greece, such as their art, language and religion.  They also fight in phalanxes (I'll probably go into more detail about their military tactics later).

So I guess you could say they have the mentality of a Spartan in terms of war but more cultural pursuits and maybe spiritualism like the Samurai just in an ancient Greek form.  Hopefully that sort of makes sense


----------



## Queshire (Apr 11, 2012)

Hm.... with the phlanax style fighting, I imagine team work would be a big thing with them yes? With the Samurai it seemed more individualized, duels and such, but with phalanxes, you'd have to be able to trust the guys beside you to not break. I think that should be reflected in more team based cultural persuits as well to build up that trust.


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 11, 2012)

Alex97 said:


> It's similar to Lord of the Rings in a lot of ways and that's where I've drawn a lot of ideas from however the cultures are quite different.  It's set in a medieval-ish fictional world with quite diverse cultures.


Careful. When I read this, a red flag went up. Try to avoid being too similar to Tolkien. It's a trap a lot of fantasy writers fall into when first starting out. (That, or making their world sound too much like their favorite RPG.) Be absolutely certain your ideas are your own and diversify your sources of inspiration. Read some good non-Tolkien stuff. I suggest the Earthsea books and the Codex Alera.



> The main culture is the Orakean league which is based largely on ancient Greece, however in more of a medieval period but still with classical elements.  The league itself consists of five city states which are all independent but work together for common gain.


If your cultures are based on Ancient Greece, then your time period isn't really going to be "medieval" but rather "classical". Add the Illiad and Odyssey to your reading list, and other Greek tales, myths, and plays as well. It'll give your work more authenticity. I think Greece is a good choice. Up till now, I don't think much has been done with a Greek setting in fantasy. This is good. It means you have a wealth of virtually untapped potential at your disposal and your WIP will have a very unique flavor. I _highly _suggest you lean more toward the classical side of things and leave medievalism alone for the most part to make the most of your setting's freshness. And one _tiny _nit-pick. "Orakean" is a bit confusing to pronunce in one's head (Is it "OR-AH-KEE-AN"? "OH-RAH-KEEN"?). I would suggest tweaking the spelling a bit.



> The city state my main character is from is called Lysanda.  It's basically a remodelled version of Sparta.  All males join the military and spend most of their lives training and fighting from a young age.  However I didn't want them to seem uncivilized and unable to do other times.  Their education consists of maths, literature...  Most men also take up an art form of some sort.


Interesting idea with a lot of potential. A couple things though. I think a Spartan-esque militaristic culture would tend to have slightly different educational priorities from the ones you've listed. I think they would tend to emphasize things that have practical use or merit, such as science, mathematics, astronomy, engineering, military history, the ability to read and write, and of course combat training. I don't think this kind of culture would find any use for literature or art (with the possible exception of music, but only then to use it to set cadences for marching).



> The city is ruled by a king supported by a council which is split into three main levels:
> General Council - consists of all adult citizens within the military (don't know if women should be included all though women will definitely have influence probably financially sine the men are all soldiers)
> Elite council - consists of officers and influential members of city
> Elder council - The ten company leader (generals) and the most powerful people in the city.


To be honest, for a militaristic society, this government is FAR too complicated. A system like this contradicts the idea of a society that is dominated by the idea of practicality. It's a well known fact that the more complex a government is, the harder it is for it to function _quickly_. Your Lysandians are probably the kind of people who would honestly prefer a dictatorship to a democratic system. I would recommend that you instead have only one council composed of the top generals and city officials, and let the council elect a dictator to a seven-year term. Armies have dictatorial command structures because when you're on the battlefield there simply isn't time to take a vote. The Lysandians should be governed by a "chain of command", not a democracy.

Now if you have a city-state based on the Athenians, democracy would suit them just fine. You could even have the two cultures at odds over their political differences. Your Atticans (I've given you that name for free, but you probably have another in mind already.) might see the Lysandian society as tyrannical and totalitarian while the Lysandians see the Atticans as divisive backstabbers and waffling filibusterers.


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 11, 2012)

Queshire said:


> Hm.... with the phlanax style fighting, I imagine team work would be a big thing with them yes? With the Samurai it seemed more individualized, duels and such, but with phalanxes, you'd have to be able to trust the guys beside you to not break. I think that should be reflected in more team based cultural persuits as well to build up that trust.



Queshire has a point. The chief concern of the Samurai was honor (personal honor, family honor, your master's honor) and personal inner strength. I think these Lysandians would be more concerned about allegiance to the state, solidarity, courage (bordering on suicidal), and pragmatism than they would be about honor per ce.


----------



## Saigonnus (Apr 11, 2012)

Historically, there is a bit of a difference between many cultures in the ancient world. Samurai would be considered a "warrior" culture in that there wasn't much in the way of fighting as a group, just "IN" a group; not a completely cohesive unit as we understand it now. Spartans on the other hand were among the first "soldier" cultures in the world where each man was fighting for and mutually supportive of the other men in the unit and were a completely cohesive unit. The world trembled at their might and they really didn't even have to fight much. At least until their secrets came out and the rest of the cultures in the region began training in a similar way and by sheer numbers overwhelmed the Spartans.


----------



## Alex97 (Apr 12, 2012)

Thanks for the great feedback.  I'll try and explain a bit more and address some of the issues.

As for being similar to lotr, I meant the sort of genre it's not going to be a carbon copy or anything. The cultures are quite different and so is my writing style, it's probably more violent.

I can definitely see what you’re saying about the medieval time period. I think my novel is still largely classical rather than medieval.  It's like the ancient Greek society survived into medieval times and adapted to the other cultures around them.  I'm thinking of having another culture with knights or something similar.  Obviously the Lysandans would have to adapt.  For example steel pikes in the phalanx to deal with plate armour and better armour themselves.  It's not really medieval as such just has some qualities from that time period.

The pronunciation is Ora-kay-ern.  I'm in early draft stages so I'll change that when I think of something suitable.

I have quite a bit of knowledge about ancient Greek mythology being half Greek myself so I take in interest in it.  I'm familiar with Homer's Iliad and the Odyssey which I will definitely use for ideas.

As for the education I haven't really gone into anything too detailed yet I was just using those as examples to show that not all they do is fight.  I'll probably look at more sporty things and practical pursuits.  I disagree about the literature as a culture like this may want to write down great tales of their heroes however I agree that they probably won't be taking up painting as a pastime.

Again when it comes to the government I'm in early draft stages although I think this sounds a bit better. There is a royal bloodline however the king can be removed if he is not fit and replaced with someone more suitable by the council.  The council itself isn't strictly democratic anyway.  However I can see what you’re saying about it being too complicated.  So if I had two councils one for all soldiers and the other for the guys at the top that would simplify things.  The council for the soldiers doesn’t actually have any control as such, it's just a place for people to voice their concerns and also hear any news the king and the top council has.  The top council actually has control as well as the king.

To give you an idea of what the army is like I’ll list some unit types:

Long phalanx: based on the Macedonian phalanx they carry long two handed pikes and form the main battle line.  Very strong from the front but inflexible and slow to manoeuvre.  They wear light armour.

Short phalanx: Carries one handed spear and shield.  Deployed on both flanks. Still strong in the front but more manoeuvrable.

Shield Bearers: Fight with sword and shield, basically Roman legionnaires in fighting style they support the phalanx and are used in more offensive manoeuvres.  

I think that the phalanx working with a legionary type of unit would be quite and adaptable army.  They would also have cavalry, light infantry and skirmisher as support but these would mainly be from other cities.

There will be an Athenian type city and there will be political issues between them.  There is also another city which falls to the Brax early in the story.  The Brax are like Vikings.


----------



## Shockley (Apr 12, 2012)

If they've developed into a more medieval world, in all likelihood they would have abandoned the phalanx. As impressive as the phalanx was, it was a very basic method of unit organization. It worked well against the early Persians, but quickly lost its dominance. When the Romans tried using the Phalanx system against the Etruscans and the Samnites the Samnites had the upper-hand. It was only when they developed the legion system that they started to win the war.

 It's also important to note that there was a major battle between the phalanx and the legion: A Roman legion invaded Greece. Remembering the three hundred Spartans, the Greek general took up a position at Thermopylae hoping to do the same thing. In a slight aversion of the previous battle, the Greeks had about ten thousand men and the Romans had twenty thousand. 

 It says something that the Greeks lost all but five hundred men, and that the Greek commander in question was Antiochus the Great. By the end of the decade all of the other Hellenistic powers (including Antiochus' own Seleucid Empire) had adopted the legion as their own method of organization.

 So if your guys are still using the phalanx in the Middle Ages (or the equivalent) they will lose. A lot. 

 ---

 I like the name Lysanda. It reminds me of Lysander. I don't like Orakean. But that's your call, at the end of the day.

 ---

 I disagree about the government being too complex for a warrior culture. Remember, the actual Spartans had two kings and the Romans had one of the most complex governing methods in human history.


----------



## Alex97 (Apr 12, 2012)

Well as far as the phalanxis concerned it's obviously going to adapt to deal with new threats.  

The main reason the phalanx failed against the Romans was due to poor leadership and lack of decent support units.

For example at the battle of Pydna the Romans were unable to get past the phalanx on their initial assualt becauase they couldn't get past the pikes (sarisa's).  The reason the Romans later won the battle was because the general Perseus ordered his  troops to advance and also didn't really use his companion cavalry which was a massive mistake.  As the phalanx advanced the Romans took advantage of the increasingly rough terrain and the phalanx fell apart.  If the macedonians didn't advance into the ground they did and used their companion cavalry in the hammer and anvil tactics that Alexander had once used.

So i think in the right hands a phalanx would still be effective.  The Selucids used a mixture of the phalanx and legion type troops in conjunction to great effect.  You get the best of both worlds - the frontal power of the phalanx and the flexibility of a legion which can protect the phalanx.  The selucid empire later fell because it's border were way too big.

I got the name Lysanda from Lysander, I'm glad someone noticed.  I'm working on Orake I think it's the way I've spelt it which dosn't go with the pronounciation very well.
Thanks for the feedback


----------



## Shockley (Apr 12, 2012)

Two points, really, that have to do with your response:

 The Greek commander at the other Thermopylae wasn't some untested, neophyte commander. It was Antiochus III, and they called him 'the Great' well before that battle happened because of his successes in India/Persia. You mention the effectiveness of the Seleucid Armies, mixing phalanx and legion units - Antiochus III was the sixth ruler of the Seleucids, and it was his crushing defeat at Thermopylae which led to the adoption of the mixed system.

 I would never say that the Phalanx was a poor system, but it was highly specialized. It was designed for head on confrontation and, as a result, was very immobile and difficult to maneuver. If you have a world where cavalry plays a big role and that cavalry has armor, it will run roughshod over a phalanx. 


 Also, I see you're wanting to do a Viking-style invasion. If that's something you stick with, I'd look into Brennus (the second one, not the one that took Rome). He was a Gallic war lord who did a lot of damage to northern Greece back in the day. Seeing the similarities of Viking and Gallic tactics (line your soldiers up straight, shields over-lapping, but without the depth of the maneuverability of a proper legion), it might be a good event for you to look into.


----------



## Alex97 (Apr 13, 2012)

I'm not nessasirly saying that that peticular general was bad although you tend to find some of them made some reall weird decisions.  They tried to improve the phalanx by making the spear longer and longer to a point where it just got stupid.  You also tend to find that the cavalry were being neglected by some commanders and relied soley on the phalanx which was unable to deal with new threats without appropriate support.  Anyway enough about debating various historical events.  I'm sure we would both end up quoting various battles in which the phalanx's pros and cons.

I'm not going to just simply have the same old phalanx that was origanally used. It's going to be adapted, and more importantly the army is going to be adapted.  I want to get the raw frontal power of the phalanx which is very difficult to overcome with frontal assualts by most forms of troops whilst overcomeing it's lack of flexibility.

In order to this all the units around it have to become a lot more important especially the shield bearers who will be responsible for securing the very weak flanks and plugging any holes that appear in the formation. They will also become extremely important in offensive maunouveurs especially in rough terrain.  The cavalry as well will become crucial as well for dealing with other cavalry thrwats and in hammer and anvil strikes.  

I'm still in drafting progress at the moment so it's taking time to work out exactly how I'm going to make this army work but the main thing I'm doing is working out how to use other troop types to compensate for the phalanx's flaws.

As always thans for the feedback.  (sorry for awful spelling I typed this up real quick)


----------



## Jon_Chong (Apr 14, 2012)

At that point your phalanx sounds closer to the roman legions and their layered formation bits, which is not entirely bad but calling it a phalanx might not be the right word to use. Note also that around the middle ages formation fighting was becoming more and more prevalent so perhaps you could take a look at some of the formations being employed. 

Also, what is the culture's stance on horses? Historically speaking, if you had a horse, you were rich. If you had a horse and armor, you were a god on the battlefield. Until guns came along, but even then mounted knights were still a dominating force on the battlefield. So how do the Lysandians see cavalry?


----------



## Alex97 (Apr 16, 2012)

Yes and no really.  There's still the phlanx there with there long pikes and evertything it's just you have a different unit called the shieldbearers who are more like legions that help make up for the phalanxes flaws.

The Lysandans or Lysandians (not sure which sounds better) have some horseman but are mainly foot soldiers.  However they have possesion of a large area of plains and the people there are loyal to them and are also very goog cavakry so the Lysandian army has a very good cavalry contingent recruited from the plains.

They also have access to a limited ammounbt of archers and skirmishers.  I think skirmishers such as peltasts are over looked but the Thracian skirmishers for example crippled the phalanx during some battles becaause they threw their javelins at the phalanx who could'nt catch up witht them then ran away.   When the phalanx begun to fall apart they would then charge and finishe them off.  It's one of the reasons that hoplites started to move away from heavy bronze armour and use leather armour so that they could move faster.


----------



## Alex97 (Apr 17, 2012)

Looking for so feedback on other cultures now.  

Within the league that Lysanda is apart of there are three other cities (I'm thinking or naming the league the Orrihan league or something seeing as Orakean wasn't too popular but that's a work in progress.

Anyway the most powerful city is Derenthia which mirrors Athens in many ways.  It is ruled by a king who is elected every two years which is obviously different to the Athenian political system but this is because of the plot.  The economy is built primarily on trade as the city is built on the main river. They also have an interest in sciences and other such pursuits.

Their made up mainly of civilians who are called up in times of war so they are not as well trained as the Lysandian army and don't have a very high moroale in comparison however at very full strength it can be larger.  A source of tension between Lysanda and Derenthia is their differing culture and the Plains that lie between both cities (large fertile grasslands between both the cities that they both have farmland on and get most of their cavalry from).  Lysanda has possesion of the West Side plains and Derenthia has the East side plains.  Derenthia also has possesion of a city to the East and has the most land out of the other cit states.

Another city is Tryphan, which is actualy named after a mountian in Wales I climbed.  It is located on the Southern coast so is also built on trade.

Nragborsk is the northen most city and has strong influences from  both the Brax (a Norse like culture) and the other city states.  It falls to the Brax early in the novel.

So there are all the city states in the league.  The one Derenthia owns is not in the league because it is not a free city and is part of the Derenthian lands. Any general feedback is definately welcome.


----------



## Queshire (Apr 17, 2012)

With the plains between the two, I can't believe they would share the plains peacefully. I have to think that one of three things would happen, 1) They would be in a constant state of war with each other for the plain, rendering them unusuable, 2) There would have to be some type of no man's land between the two, thus having that no man's land be unusable, or 3) There would have to be some type of natural or artificial boundry through the plains, like a river or a wall.


----------



## Alex97 (Apr 18, 2012)

There is a massive river between the two which is where Derenthiah gets it's trade from.  Besides they are allies since they share common enemies.  Later in the book I plan to explain exactly why the league was formed and why the city states haven't constantly been attacking eachother.  The founding of the league is actualy linked to a far more sinister evil than rival cultures and civilizations.  This is slowly revealed throughout the book.  Basicaly evil gods and demons.  I'll go on about that in othetr thread at some time but I have a basic myhtology and back story which explains everything.


----------



## Ankari (Apr 19, 2012)

I king that is elected every two years?  I don't think that makes logical sense, as kingship is hereditary.  

Also, how long has this league been around?  Do the city states often fight one another?  Why hasn't the largest of the city states not taken over the smaller ones?  I am not asking you to answer them to me, but did you answer these yourself when you created this world?

I like the concept of city-states.  I am using them for a portion of my world now.  I like them because they are a source of such pride for each citizen as well as much strife for each city state.


----------



## Queshire (Apr 19, 2012)

Oh I don't think most people would worry about a king getting elected. It's a nice little oddity. In fact if I remember correctly, wasn't there some debate or something with people wanting to elect George Washington king of the USA after the revolutionary war? Of course, there are other terms you can use, but that's just getting into a matter of semantics.


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 19, 2012)

Ankari said:


> I king that is elected every two years?  I don't think that makes logical sense, as kingship is hereditary.
> 
> Also, how long has this league been around?  Do the city states often fight one another?  Why hasn't the largest of the city states not taken over the smaller ones?  I am not asking you to answer them to me, but did you answer these yourself when you created this world?
> 
> I like the concept of city-states.  I am using them for a portion of my world now.  I like them because they are a source of such pride for each citizen as well as much strife for each city state.



Well this is fantasy after all. In my books I have a divinely chosen non-hereditary kingship, similar the judges of ancient Israel. A democratically elected king? Why not?


----------



## Jabrosky (Apr 19, 2012)

Ankari said:


> I king that is elected every two years?  I don't think that makes logical sense, as kingship is hereditary.



"President" would be an awkward term for a medieval fantasy, wouldn't it?


----------



## Shockley (Apr 19, 2012)

Probably for a medieval fantasy, though the word President is very old, coming from the Latin Praesidens. It's just old enough to give us an old English variant, Praesident. 

 The old Lombardians elected their leaders prior to actually settling down, if I remember correctly. They referred to their elected leader as the 'Fosite,' which is just a variation on the name of one of the Nordic gods (Forsetti). I'm rather fond of 'Fosite.'

 Edit: Also, the idea of an elected kingship is not exactly new. I can't think of any instance where they had a set term, but a lot of major European kingdoms were based on this method for a very long time. If you're insistent on having a revolving kingship, I'd suggest doing something like the Spartans: Have two kings and then have authority oscillate between them depending on what year it is.


----------



## Alex97 (Apr 19, 2012)

Ankari said:


> I king that is elected every two years?  I don't think that makes logical sense, as kingship is hereditary.
> 
> Also, how long has this league been around?  Do the city states often fight one another?  Why hasn't the largest of the city states not taken over the smaller ones?  I am not asking you to answer them to me, but did you answer these yourself when you created this world?
> 
> I like the concept of city-states.  I am using them for a portion of my world now.  I like them because they are a source of such pride for each citizen as well as much strife for each city state.



What the other guys said about an elected king pretty much sums up my reasons.  By the way this king can be continously re-elected.

To answer your questions about the league which I'm probably now going to call the Elessian League because the country is called Elessia requires me to explain a lot of the back line plot which is central to the story.  Bear in mind this is still in draft work .

So at the very beggining of time you have a god who is very simmilar to God from the Christian faith (and other faiths).  I haven't got a name yet so I will refer to him as God for now. Anyway he creates the universe and the lesser gods who resemble many ancient Greek and Roman gods.  God then creates the Averteri, a humanlike race of immortals who are good (no evil in them at all).  Their main purpose is to serve the gods.  They're also more powerful than your average human

However god think's something is missing so he makes mankind.  However he plants a concept in their mind - evil in it's various forms.  For hundreds/thousands of years primitive humans, the Averteri and the lesser gods all live in peace.  But eventualy some humans turn evil or show evil qualities.  One of the gods, Khrone (name may change) who is not considred to be as mighty as the others wants to prove himself so he studdies this concept of evil.

Eventualy Khrone becomes corrupted and believes that he is more powerful than God. He corrupts many of the lesser gods and even tricks some of the good ones by saying god is actualy evil for creating evil.  He then tries to corrup the Averteri but fails because they are only capeable of doing good so therefore completely destroys their minds and plants his own will inside them.  Their bodies are then warped and become demonlike.

Next he moves onto mankind.  Some are corrupted other are not.  Those that are not are swiftly enslave.  After years of enslavement mankind and the gods the lesser gods that remained loyal to god fight a massive war against Khrone.  They win and God imprisons Khrone and his demons under the Northen wastes.  He then gives the keys to mankind to look after which are fragments of a star that additionaly grant cool bennefits as well. 

Flash foward thousands of years.  Mankind are constantly fighting each other and the lesser gods become fearful that the keys will fall into the wrong hands.  So they send a message to an Elassian man from one of the city states called Talamon.  He is told to unite the city states and recover the keys.

He proceeds to unite the four cities of Lysanda, Derenthia, Tryfan and Nragborsk who then go on a massive conquest in search of the keys (very few no the aim of the conquest; most believe it is to build an empire).  He succeeds and takes over most of the known world recovering alll the keys.

  After he dies there are about 200 hundred years of peace but then the empire soon starts to fall apart and the the league ends up with it's original lands.  Derenthia is the only city that has some land left from the conquest.  Consequalty now that the empire had fallen most of the keys were lost as well.

To answer your question about why they are not always fighting, there are a few answers.  Firstly they simply have too many other enemies to be fighting eachother.  They also all bennefit from the league in some way, whether that be economicaly or be it military protection.  The reason Derenthia hasn't invaded Lysanda for example is that they are pretty well matched so they would both face very heavy loses and would be seriously weakned making it difficult to deal with other threats mainly from the North and South.

Hopefully this has answred your questions and sorry for the long post.  Feedback on the back story is greatly appreciated but please remember this is an early drafting stage so nothing is set in stone or perfect yet.


----------



## Queshire (Apr 19, 2012)

mrrr..... this is just me, but I really hate it when good and evil are considered quantifiable things. Nobody think's they're evil, no matter what they do, they think that their actions are either justified or neccesary.


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 19, 2012)

Alex97 said:


> So at the very beggining of time you have a god who is very simmilar to God from the Christian faith (and other faiths).  I haven't got a name yet so I will refer to him as God for now. Anyway he creates the universe and the lesser gods who resemble many ancient Greek and Roman gods.  God then creates the Averteri, a humanlike race of immortals who are good (no evil in them at all).  Their main purpose is to serve the gods.  They're also more powerful than your average human.
> 
> However god think's something is missing so he makes mankind.  However he plants a concept in their mind - evil in it's various forms.  For hundreds/thousands of years primitive humans, the Averteri and the lesser gods all live in peace.  But eventualy some humans turn evil or show evil qualities.  One of the gods, Khrone (name may change) who is not considred to be as mighty as the others wants to prove himself so he studdies this concept of evil.
> 
> ...



So what you're saying is that your omnipotent, vaguely Judeo-Christian Creator-God (who's absolutely nothing like Eru Illuvatar) created lesser gods (NOT the Valar) and angelic spirits (NOT the Maiar) and the universe existed in harmony until Khrone (NOT Melkor/Morgoth) incites a rebellion in which he corrupts other lesser gods (NOT Balrogs) and twists beautiful, perfect beings to his will, causing them to become ugly (NOT Orcs). There is a war between the loyal gods and Khrone (which has nothing in common with the war of the Valar) which ends with Khrone being inprisoned (again, absolutely nothing like Morgoth.)

Seems legit.


----------



## Alex97 (Apr 19, 2012)

Yes of course, that's kind of what I've failed to explain.  Khrone actualy thinks that God is at fault and unfit to rule.  He believes that because he dosn't think that humans should have been created with selfish desires, anger... That's why he tries to overthrow God because he dosn't understand that to have good you have to some form evil so that people are tested (for example avoiding temptation).  Sorry that's just me failing to explain fully.  Another example is when some of the gods who are genuinely good at heart are decieved intot Thinking God is evil.  Others are just selfish or have a hatred of God for various justifieble and unjustifieable reasons.

I plan to write the novel with a lot of grey areas between good and evil.  It's obvious that Khrone is at fault but he himself does not believe that. My main character Alator despite fighting for the "good guys" is going to do some pretty awful things which will be play on his guilt such as butchering a fairly large ammount of people after a battle.

Another aspect of this gray area is the clash between the Brax and the Elessian league.  Their cultureal differences and lack of understanding about eachother mean that both consider the other barbaric or evil as such.  In fact when the Brax invade the Elessian league it is only because they are driven out of their homes from the North.

So before Khrone manages to get out of his prison there's already been a lot of fighting between the "good guys who have constantly been butchering eachother.  Hopefully that clears thing up a bit just explained the above story like that to condense it a bit - yeah some characters arfe evil, but they don't do it to be evil.  Other characters aren't easily identifible as good or evil.  

Personaly I don't like really like it either when there is straight on good and evil, it makes the characters very one dimensional as well.


----------



## Shockley (Apr 19, 2012)

In all fairness, Tolkien didn't exactly create the idea of a fallen figure corrupting others with him, or a war between the gods. Just sayin'. You could say he's working with a fairly standard creation myth (which he is), but I doubt it was Tolkien inspired.


----------



## Alex97 (Apr 19, 2012)

Thanks for the sarcasm it helps, a lot... :tongue:

Right let me clear thing up a bit.  Firstly there are absoloutely no orcs what so ever.  The lesser Gods are far closser to Greek gods and take on a far more physical role than the valar.  Also the lesser gods being balrogs.. what?  One majour difference between Khrone and Melkor is that Khrone is not the chief god in a sense, in fact he is one of the weakest.  Melkor was the most powerful because he has a bit of all Illvatar's aspects.  Khrone is pretty weak untill he gains a bit of power for himself.

Not once did a mention Orcs, what the Averteri turn into is very different.  They're a lor more powerful than orcs and a lot more varried.  They have no mind of their own what so ever and resemble the lesser god they are aligned to.  Some are sort of demonic, others aren't physical beings, some look like they did before.  They all resemble different forms of evil.  Plus they are not corrupted in any form because they can't be.  He literaly removes the brain and keeps the body, they are not tortured or anything.

The main thing to remember is that the characteristics of both Khrone the Averterti and the lesser gods are different to thosd of Melkor, the Valar and orcs.  The valar it seems are more like powerful angels rather than gods.  Melkor is basically Lucifer in many senses.  Also please remember I am still drafting and there is a lot of changes to be made.  I can agree that the story may perhaps be very simular however the gods are not like the valar and there are definately nor orcs, or elves and dwarves for that matter.


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 19, 2012)

Shockley said:


> In all fairness, Tolkien didn't exactly create the idea of a fallen figure corrupting others with him, or a war between the gods. Just sayin'. You could say he's working with a fairly standard creation myth (which he is), but I doubt it was Tolkien inspired.





Alex97 said:


> Thanks for the sarcasm it helps, a lot... :tongue:
> 
> Right let me clear thing up a bit.  Firstly there are absoloutely no orcs what so ever.  The lesser Gods are far closser to Greek gods and take on a far more physical role than the valar.  Also the lesser gods being balrogs.. what?  One majour difference between Khrone and Melkor is that Khrone is not the chief god in a sense, in fact he is one of the weakest.  Melkor was the most powerful because he has a bit of all Illvatar's aspects.  Khrone is pretty weak untill he gains a bit of power for himself.
> 
> ...



It's very true that Alex97's cosmology is based on a number of creation stories and that Tolkien was not the first to create such a tale. However, Tolkien is the most famous to have done something like this, so subsequent tales that show resemblence to his ideas are very likely to be judged as derivative, even if they're not. I was just trying to point that out. With sarcasm.  You're going to have to put in a lot of effort to avoid it being labeled a Tolkien clone, even if it isn't one.


----------



## Alex97 (Apr 19, 2012)

I have to admit I was worried ths story was to simular.  I could ditch the actual God figuire in favour for just the lesser gods which would be more or less the Olympian gods.  From there on theres a few options.  The gods could fight some sort of evil that they themselves didn't create.  Problem with that is it might just end up as a clone of Greek mythology which condensed basically is - Gods beat titans. Titans get imprisoned. Titans get out.  Smae thing again really.

Alternitively I could just focus on the wars between human cultures which would be ok although it seems lacking in scale, and really powerful swords and artifacts for example just don't seem that important.

So far I'm very happy with the cultures I've created and the way they react and fight with eachother.  I'm also happy with the lesser gods at least, which are like the Olympian gods.  The main problem is thinking up something origanal that is a greater threat than simply another empire without cloning something!  I also like the idea of the keys (or star fragments/stones) because it gives a deeper meaning to why the conquest started and also the role of my most elite group of soldiers which I've failed to mention so far.  Still I can see how it is at risk of looking like a copy.


----------

