# Hey guys, up for brainstorming?



## Aidan of the tavern (Mar 17, 2012)

Hey people.  Recently I feel I've lost...I don't know, my writing mojo or whatever it is, possibly why I've been low profile around here recently.  I have lost faith in my formula, and have decided to rebuild certain aspects of my draft.  Any help to get me back on the road would be much appreciated:help:.

Whats troubling me most is the antagonist's goal.  The main land where the story takes place is comprised of semi-independant city-states, all in a mutually beneficial trade alliance.  Over the years, this treaty has been developed to be beneficial to all, with each town supporting the others to an extent.  Until now he was going to take control of the land by occupying the main city, which is head of the treaty, breaking the chain.  He was then planning on dissolving the treaty and reforming the land into a monarchy, and building it up from there, turining it into one big kingdom.  The protags are trying to stop him to retain the land's independance, and protect the magic item the antag needs.  

The antagonist's goal just seems really lame to me, but I can't think of anything good.  Any ideas on how to spice up his ambitions would be welcome.  I should point out, he is not evil, so he isn't going to be unleashing dinos from hell or anything.


----------



## San Cidolfus (Mar 17, 2012)

If he's not evil and is out to unify a region, why not have him be the sort to band states together in order to defend against an outside threat?  Perhaps it's a threat known to only a few, so his motivations are obscure to the world at large.  Do that right, and it's a fine reveal when the protagonists get that far.

And you're not the only one struggling with the mojo.  Just show that mojo who's boss.


----------



## Aidan of the tavern (Mar 17, 2012)

San Cidolfus said:


> If he's not evil and is out to unify a region, why not have him be the sort to band states together in order to defend against an outside threat?  Perhaps it's a threat known to only a few, so his motivations are obscure to the world at large.  Do that right, and it's a fine reveal when the protagonists get that far.
> 
> And you're not the only one struggling with the mojo.  Just show that mojo who's boss.




Thanks San.  I don't really know what I'm looking for, maybe a good reason to stop him or something.


----------



## Butterfly (Mar 17, 2012)

Well, one reason to stop him - If he's occupying the central city then he's holding all the trade and supply routes to ransom. He's controlling the distribution of wealth throughout these kingdoms, the supplies of essentials and ores, coal, could be everything. Maybe that's his goal, and a reason for the others to unite against him. Controlling the trade routes will have all sorts of effects right across the board from nobles who won't afford to be able to pay their soldiers, merchants who can't make their money, to farmers who can't afford to buy seeds or get a supply of them to feed the populace, right down to the common peasants who are pretty much then destined to fall into even deeper poverty.

It could even have a severe impact on the spread of disease.


----------



## Aidan of the tavern (Mar 17, 2012)

Butterfly said:


> Well, one reason to stop him - If he's occupying the central city then he's holding all the trade and supply routes to ransom. He's controlling the distribution of wealth throughout these kingdoms, the supplies of essentials and ores, coal, could be everything. Maybe that's his goal, and a reason for the others to unite against him. Controlling the trade routes will have all sorts of effects right across the board from nobles who won't afford to be able to pay their soldiers, merchants who can't make their money, to farmers who can't afford to buy seeds or get a supply of them to feed the populace, right down to the common peasants who are pretty much then destined to fall into even deeper poverty.
> 
> It could even have a severe impact on the spread of disease.



Gooooood, I'm thinking now.  Maybe he wants to use it as a base to start a conquest.  Thank you good and virtuous Butterfly.


----------



## Devor (Mar 18, 2012)

Aidan of the tavern said:


> Until now he was going to take control of the land by occupying the main city, which is head of the treaty, breaking the chain.  He was then planning on dissolving the treaty and reforming the land into a monarchy, and building it up from there, turining it into one big kingdom.  The protags are trying to stop him to retain the land's independance, and protect the magic item the antag needs.



I can see why you're struggling.

It's hard to say for sure without looking at a map, but I don't see how occupying one of several city-states automatically leads to control of the whole realm.  Supply routes can be diverted, and if the city-states are supporting each other, there's very few resources so vital that one region could hold the others hostage.  The only way I see your antagonist seizing control of naturally independent city-states is through the threat of a bigger army or possibly, as someone mentioned, promising protection from someone else.  That is, pretty much by racketeering.

That changes, though, if you give your region a bit more political history.  If they used to be one kingdom, people can be convinced to return to being one kingdom.  If the city-states have a history of corruption, people can be convinced that it's worth bypassing their authority.  If your antagonist had a grand scheme to solve big problems, like promising to build trains or aqueducts to connect the city-states, I could see that working as well.

But he needs to make the case for building a kingdom, even if that case amounts to "Do it or I destroy you."  Once you understand that motivation, you have a framework for understanding his actions.

Me, I'd go with two or three motivations to make his character stronger.


----------



## MAndreas (Mar 18, 2012)

It sounds like the antag's not evil per se, but every villian is the hero of his own story- so maybe he thinks he's not evil, but his plan for unifying the city states would crush the independance of them- thus he's evil in their eyes.

The biggest work around as I see it, is that often smaller city-states are stronger when grouped together.  So you need to make it very clear that the opposite is true, that unifying them will actually destroy them.  Could there be an ancient magic reason why they can't be under one rule?  Something one of your protogs know, but no one else believes?  That way the protogs are not only fighting the antag- but general population as well.

Just thinking


----------



## Aidan of the tavern (Mar 18, 2012)

Devor said:


> I can see why you're struggling.
> 
> It's hard to say for sure without looking at a map, but I don't see how occupying one of several city-states automatically leads to control of the whole realm.  Supply routes can be diverted, and if the city-states are supporting each other, there's very few resources so vital that one region could hold the others hostage.  The only way I see your antagonist seizing control of naturally independent city-states is through the threat of a bigger army or possibly, as someone mentioned, promising protection from someone else.  That is, pretty much by racketeering.
> 
> ...



The big city he's after is the commercial and economic powerhouse, but also the head of the treaty, therefore if he controls it the other towns can't move against it without rebelling.


----------



## Aidan of the tavern (Mar 18, 2012)

MAndreas said:


> It sounds like the antag's not evil per se, but every villian is the hero of his own story- so maybe he thinks he's not evil, but his plan for unifying the city states would crush the independance of them- thus he's evil in their eyes.
> 
> The biggest work around as I see it, is that often smaller city-states are stronger when grouped together.  So you need to make it very clear that the opposite is true, that unifying them will actually destroy them.  Could there be an ancient magic reason why they can't be under one rule?  Something one of your protogs know, but no one else believes?  That way the protogs are not only fighting the antag- but general population as well.
> 
> Just thinking



Maybe the antag is seriously overestimating his abilities, therefore siezing political control would only lead the land into chaos.  
Thanks people, this is helping.


----------



## Devor (Mar 18, 2012)

Aidan of the tavern said:


> The big city he's after is the commercial and economic powerhouse, but also the head of the treaty, therefore if he controls it the other towns can't move against it without rebelling.



I don't really understand, but I don't think that makes any sense.  An "economics powerhouse" can't really exist without mass production.  If it's a trade center, it would be much more dependent on the other cities than they are on it.  And what kind of a treaty would give this one city the power to make them into a monarchy?  If they are sovereign city-states, it doesn't make sense for them to have signed such a document.


----------



## Aidan of the tavern (Mar 18, 2012)

Devor said:


> I don't really understand, but I don't think that makes any sense.  An "economics powerhouse" can't really exist without mass production.  If it's a trade center, it would be much more dependent on the other cities than they are on it.  And what kind of a treaty would give this one city the power to make them into a monarchy?  If they are sovereign city-states, it doesn't make sense for them to have signed such a document.



They aren't exactly sovereign city states, they're just a group of towns more or less governed from the big city by a council of representatives.  They all are fairly dependent on each other.  Originally the antag was going to scrap the treaty, and subdue the other towns by various means, but as you can tell I'm starting to lose the plot now.


----------



## Butterfly (Mar 18, 2012)

Aidan - I have been thinking about this item you have mentioned..

What is this magical item that the antagonist needs?

Why does he need it and what does it do?

What is the reason as to why it is being kept from him?

Who is keeping it from him?

And, what is the danger of him acquiring it?


----------



## Aidan of the tavern (Mar 18, 2012)

Butterfly said:


> Aidan - I have been thinking about this item you have mentioned..
> 
> What is this magical item that the antagonist needs?
> 
> ...



This is embarrasing, but I suppose I was 14 when I thought it up.  It was a medallion owned by the protagonist, which had the power to grant protection, but nobody knows how to awake it.  For obvious cheesy, cliched reasons I'm trying to think of a different power.  I'm toying with the idea of it giving protection in the sense that you can travel to different elemental planes safely with it, or protection from magic, but I'm thinking of just getting a brand new item.

A more recent idea is that it could be a magical seal used validate orders, maybe in terms of politics, or even religion.  Whatever it is the antag wants it, and the protag is stuck with it.  A lot of my ideas are still evolving due to struggling to tie all the loose ends up.


----------



## Butterfly (Mar 18, 2012)

Don't be embarrassed...

If no one can awaken it then maybe it's a key to some dark ancient secret lost in rumour and legends.

I think that when you work out exactly what it is and why it is so important, then your other issues with the plot will all tie in together.


----------



## Queshire (Mar 18, 2012)

How about it lets the user reshape the land? I mean, nothing's more useful for getting people to listen to you then being able to reroute a river through their living room.


----------



## BeigePalladin (Mar 18, 2012)

Devor said:


> I don't really understand, but I don't think that makes any sense.  An "economics powerhouse" can't really exist without mass production.  If it's a trade center, it would be much more dependent on the other cities than they are on it.  And what kind of a treaty would give this one city the power to make them into a monarchy?  If they are sovereign city-states, it doesn't make sense for them to have signed such a document.



this. If they are independant states, then occupying one would not give you power over the others (you might be able to inconvinience them, but that's about it), but may very likely - if it does disrupt their buisness - cause them to send armies to reclaim the state for it's previous owners.

as Devor said, who in their right mind would ever sign a treaty whereby they agree that one state can subsume them into another state at a whim. I could understad the treaty making them hesitant to attack if this was a legal change of rulers and/or the new ruler did not intend to then concour the other states, but it appears to be neither. Since the person being attacked does not hold to the treaty, then there is no logical reason for the other states too.

so, I'd suggest looking for more reasons why they can't attack (bu not ones that would make them attack out of desperation and/or make seazing the main state rather than all of them in order a meaningless gesture in the long run; eg invincible army, mind control magic, etc). Maybe he struck during a diplomatic/trade confrence and holds the heads of the other states hostage, as well as the state? It gives protection, and a reason to get involved.

as for motive to move against this guy, he's taken over a country and plans to subsume others under his rule; that is already, a highly justifiable reason for why someone would try and stop him. Really, tacking any more on there makes you seem desperate for him to be detested by all - which works against the fact that as you said he's not evil.

Last quick question; you mention he needs to obtain a magic item to take over the other states - care to elaborate? as right now this is looking to be a non-sequitor fetch quest to some pretty intresting background, and I'm wondering if the maguffin is needed, or if the plot could run with the heroes straight up working agaisnt the usurper rather than going on a treasure hunt.


----------



## Saigonnus (Mar 18, 2012)

It could be that the "main" city is the fulcrum of the military might in the region. Each city-state would likely have their own units of soldiers under the local duke/lord or whatever, but the main city could have enough to take on any 3 or 4 city-states and not even blink... might makes right is definitely something medieval Europe had going for it. It would also offer merchants a measure of protection for trading their goods within the city instead of in the smaller towns; where the constabulatory may not be as effective or maybe even corrupt. 

It would give the MC a reason beyond it being the center of trade to take control of it... control that much military might and it could act as a catalyst among the smaller city-states to join the side of the MC without it affecting trade in the slightest. 

As for the magic item, it may not be necessary unless for some reason it will make the chief antagonist weaker or the MC stronger so they have a better chance of taking on the bad guy.


----------



## Aidan of the tavern (Mar 20, 2012)

BeigePalladin said:


> this. If they are independant states, then occupying one would not give you power over the others (you might be able to inconvinience them, but that's about it), but may very likely - if it does disrupt their buisness - cause them to send armies to reclaim the state for it's previous owners.
> 
> as Devor said, who in their right mind would ever sign a treaty whereby they agree that one state can subsume them into another state at a whim. I could understad the treaty making them hesitant to attack if this was a legal change of rulers and/or the new ruler did not intend to then concour the other states, but it appears to be neither. Since the person being attacked does not hold to the treaty, then there is no logical reason for the other states too.
> 
> ...



This treaty doesn't mean that the towns can be subsumed or politically altered in any way other than by their respective lords.  Effectively it just establishes trade rights.  The main city is the most formidable military power, but relies on the surrounding towns for support, while they in turn rely on it for protection etc.

I'm not really looking for the antag to be universally detested, it just isn't easy for me to work out how much resonance I want to give him in terms of after-effects and the like.

As for the business with the item, the antag is just a guy with a few connections here and there, not much offensive power.  Therefore he wants this item which is either a - going to give him imunity of some kind from retaliation, or b - going to give him secretly false authority, like a "lost" seal allowing him to forge documents and disrupt the peace.


----------



## arbiter117 (Mar 20, 2012)

Maybe the treaty isn't benefiting everyone, or at least some people don't think it is. Maybe the treaty is restricting trade to between those cities only and the antagonist wants to get in on some trading biz with some other country. He tries to do so illegally, but he gets caught and put in jail for a long period of time and his business goes down the drain and his wife and kids starve to death.

So when he gets out of prison he wants to make a few changes. Taking over other cities would allow him to control the markets a little easier and control the local police and allow him to get into that trade biz with the outside world.


----------



## Aidan of the tavern (Mar 20, 2012)

arbiter117 said:


> Maybe the treaty isn't benefiting everyone, or at least some people don't think it is. Maybe the treaty is restricting trade to between those cities only and the antagonist wants to get in on some trading biz with some other country. He tries to do so illegally, but he gets caught and put in jail for a long period of time and his business goes down the drain and his wife and kids starve to death.
> 
> So when he gets out of prison he wants to make a few changes. Taking over other cities would allow him to control the markets a little easier and control the local police and allow him to get into that trade biz with the outside world.



Thats not half bad arbiter, thanks.  I'll think about that.


----------



## ThinkerX (Mar 20, 2012)

> Maybe the treaty isn't benefiting everyone, or at least some people don't think it is. Maybe the treaty is restricting trade to between those cities only and the antagonist wants to get in on some trading biz with some other country. He tries to do so illegally, but he gets caught and put in jail for a long period of time and his business goes down the drain and his wife and kids starve to death.
> 
> So when he gets out of prison he wants to make a few changes. Taking over other cities would allow him to control the markets a little easier and control the local police and allow him to get into that trade biz with the outside world.



This is the approach I would use.  The existing alliance set up is very profitable to a substantial minority in each of these fiefs, but wrecks havoc with the majority - farmers forced to become serfs, laws written so that merchants who don't have an 'in' with the Alliance don't do very well at all, so on and so forth.


----------



## Paradox (Mar 20, 2012)

Some of this is already written but I will rewrite it so everything makes sense.

Antag takes over the City with the most control over the city states(I will refer to this city as Antag from now on). What if each city state has one thing its better at than all others, its premier export. Food, Coal, Iron, ect. Antag happens to be the largest and located in the center of the continent and thus over the years it becomes the hub of trade, it also is connected by a number of rivers perhaps making goods easily moveable throughout the land from this central port, perhaps it sits on a large lake the rivers feed into and out of.

Now since Antag is where all the goods go for trade and sell it would make sense that most of the skilled workers(smiths, wood workers, painters, ect) have moved here. Thus Antag prime export is that of manufactured goods, namely weapons and armor. You can also have it located in a huge plains and its original premier export was horses. This would make this city very powerful and influential in the scheme of the city state.

Thus the city states could survive on their own but it makes more sense to trade what you are good at for what someone else is good at. If you city state A takes 5 hours to mine 100 tons of coal while it takes city state B 10 hours and it takes City State B 2 hours to catch 10 lbs of fish(cause for example they are a coastal city state) and it takes City State A 10 hours to catch 10 lbs out of the river its clear they should just trade.

I like the idea of making the Antagonist not be a bad guy. The example of him going to jail and his wife/child dieing is a good catalyst for him wanting to the city states to merge into one central government/kingdom is a good start. Perhaps there is a prophecy of some symbol uniting the city states into a kingdom of old which is all but legend today. What if your protagonist has a family heirloom which turns out to be this symbol. 

Though it turns out its not the heirloom but the protagonist himself who is the symbol. What if he is the last of the old royal bloodline. Perhaps in the old days the kingdom was shattered when the royal family sacrificed itself sealing some unspeakable evil within themselves and giving up the crown. Thus if your protagonist unites the city states against your antagonist this unspeakable evil will be released. What if the unspeakable evil and his supporters are manipulating both your protagonist and antagonist into conflict which neither really wants.

This could be a good lead up to a 2nd book. The two must unite to defeat this unspeakable evil they released upon the world.

Just some thoughts i'd throw your way.


----------



## Aidan of the tavern (Mar 21, 2012)

Paradox said:


> Some of this is already written but I will rewrite it so everything makes sense.
> 
> Antag takes over the City with the most control over the city states(I will refer to this city as Antag from now on). What if each city state has one thing its better at than all others, its premier export. Food, Coal, Iron, ect. Antag happens to be the largest and located in the center of the continent and thus over the years it becomes the hub of trade, it also is connected by a number of rivers perhaps making goods easily moveable throughout the land from this central port, perhaps it sits on a large lake the rivers feed into and out of.
> 
> ...



Thanks for throwing those thoughts at me.  You've basically got it spot on with the antag city thing, it is the economic hub and it makes sense to trade with it.  I like your idea of giving each of the city states a speciality, I've already made one of them a port town, so that can be getting offshore imports etc.  

I also love the idea of a reason for the antag and protag to join together for a while (I mean who would see that coming), and I like the idea of them having a complex respect/dislike relationship.  Yeah, a 3 party conflict, thank you.


----------



## Paradox (Mar 22, 2012)

Glad I could be of some help.


----------



## Leif GS Notae (Mar 24, 2012)

I'm not sure if this was touched on, I read a few replies and decided I should throw in this idea before it flittered away.

I think the real problem here is that your antagonist isn't a villain. The antagonist's job is to make the protagonist better through obstacles and challenges, but it doesn't always make him a villain. I believe what might work here is the antag is affiliated with a villain (perhaps someone who will benefit from the union through power or money... or both) and the antag is blindly accepting of this due to something that happened in their past.

The ties that could be interesting here is the protag and antag having a common goal seen through different lenses. It can also give your antag sympathy if they find redemption by foiling the villain's goals. Then, with a power vacuum, your antag has a tough decision. Stay on the "righteous" path and be good or fill the vacuum and become the next villain.

Hope that helps, and sorry if I mentioned something already stated! Good luck.


----------



## Aidan of the tavern (Mar 25, 2012)

Leif GS Notae said:


> I'm not sure if this was touched on, I read a few replies and decided I should throw in this idea before it flittered away.
> 
> I think the real problem here is that your antagonist isn't a villain. The antagonist's job is to make the protagonist better through obstacles and challenges, but it doesn't always make him a villain. I believe what might work here is the antag is affiliated with a villain (perhaps someone who will benefit from the union through power or money... or both) and the antag is blindly accepting of this due to something that happened in their past.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the ideas, I'm getting there.


----------

