Building a comprehensive ‘world’

[Finchbearer]

I say ‘world’ because really I’m currently deep into building a comprehensive country rather than entire world, which brings me to my first question: I intend to only focus on one principle country where the story is set, though it is vast, and the northern part of the bordering country to the south, with whom there shall be an ensuing war with. It makes sense to me to only include these factors on the visual map, but obviously there is still the rest of the globe that I haven’t included due to its irrelevance to the story. Does this bother you, or does it make sense?

Also, it’s taken me quite a time to figure out the political system for my world. I have set it in an early medieval inspired northern hemisphere country, that has a belief system centered around a mixture of Celtic, Old English and Norse culture and mythologies. There is also a system of nobility, working classes and peasantry. But there is no monarchy. So I have come up with a confederation of provinces, with each province ruled by a noble family, with many other noble families who are not ruling but are land owning. In terms of rule of law, the confederation is overseen by a council of nobles with each nobleman having a seat on the council. The nobles are responsible for keeping this hierarchy in place, protecting its people and keeping the peace. There is also a court culture where nobles are expected to hold events to show off their wealth and status, make political alliances and allow a culture of courtship between nobles who have come of age.

The country to the south has an absolute monarchy with a newly appointed arrogant, power-mad king who is the one who wages said brewing war.

Does this make sense? Does it matter that there is no monarchy but there are nobles? Are there any major oversights or flaws in your opinion?

My magical system, in basic terms consists of individuals who are born ‘gifted’, with magical powers. Individuals are gifted at random, and they can be noble or peasantry, although because of how my system works, there are more noble gifted individuals due to the social mobility that being gifted offers to those of the lower and peasant classes. This also means that anyone who is found to possess gifts are sent to institutions as soon as their gift shows itself (usually during puberty) and are expected to take an oath once they have finished their studies at around the age of eighteen to give their magical services to the country. They can be moved around the country so that the gifts are spread equally, for example of there are more healers needed in a certain province, or more more populated areas such as cities. Some caveats for gifted women are that if they marry into nobility or are already nobility and get married, they are not oblidged to carry on as a magical servant, and gifted men can join the armed forces and have the choice of using their gifts, or not.

Does this sit in line well enough with the political system? Does it make sense?

And finally, warfare / armed forces. One name I came up with is the Waelburg Warriors with ‘Waelburg’ meaning valiant or brave in Old English. Problem is, I need a hierarchy, or maybe each province has their own version of this. Are there opportunities to become shieldmaidens? I just don’t know about this one. Magical servants would also be expected to give their services to any war.

Any opinions or thoughts would be helpful.

 

[Devor]

I intend to only focus on one principle country where the story is set, though it is vast, and the northern part of the bordering country to the south, with whom there shall be an ensuing war with. It makes sense to me to only include these factors on the visual map, but obviously there is still the rest of the globe that I haven’t included due to its irrelevance to the story. Does this bother you, or does it make sense?

The map can include whatever area you think is relevant. My own map details one country, and just shows the name and outline of its four neighbors. One country, and part of another, is just fine.

Also, it’s taken me quite a time to figure out the political system for my world. I have set it in an early medieval inspired northern hemisphere country, that has a belief system centered around a mixture of Celtic, Old English and Norse culture and mythologies. There is also a system of nobility, working classes and peasantry. But there is no monarchy. So I have come up with a confederation of provinces, with each province ruled by a noble family, with many other noble families who are not ruling but are land owning. In terms of rule of law, the confederation is overseen by a council of nobles with each nobleman having a seat on the council. The nobles are responsible for keeping this hierarchy in place, protecting its people and keeping the peace. There is also a court culture where nobles are expected to hold events to show off their wealth and status, make political alliances and allow a culture of courtship between nobles who have come of age.

The country to the south has an absolute monarchy with a newly appointed arrogant, power-mad king who is the one who wages said brewing war.

On the one hand, whatever you're doing is probably fine, people like to kind of just go with stuff like this.

Shooting for realism, and thinking as a worldbuilder, there's something that's bugging me a little about this. Monarchy looked differently at different points in time, and at some points it did look like a confederation of feudal provinces ruled by lords who picked a king, and that king was a figurehead who had to go through them to get anything done. Or if they don't appoint a figurehead, then each province is mostly a city-state with its own king. As a practical matter, I don't think these differences really do much to change the lives of the people living in them, the way living in a republic or a theocracy might.

My magical system, in basic terms consists of individuals who are born ‘gifted’, with magical powers. Individuals are gifted at random, and they can be noble or peasantry, although because of how my system works, there are more noble gifted individuals due to the social mobility that being gifted offers to those of the lower and peasant classes. This also means that anyone who is found to possess gifts are sent to institutions as soon as their gift shows itself (usually during puberty) and are expected to take an oath once they have finished their studies at around the age of eighteen to give their magical services to the country. They can be moved around the country so that the gifts are spread equally, for example of there are more healers needed in a certain province, or more more populated areas such as cities. Some caveats for gifted women are that if they marry into nobility or are already nobility and get married, they are not oblidged to carry on as a magical servant, and gifted men can join the armed forces and have the choice of using their gifts, or not.

Does this sit in line well enough with the political system? Does it make sense?

It feels like a pretty standard system for regulating magic use, similar to what other writers have done.

 

[pmmg]

Also, it’s taken me quite a time to figure out the political system for my world. I have set it in an early medieval inspired northern hemisphere country, that has a belief system centered around a mixture of Celtic, Old English and Norse culture and mythologies. There is also a system of nobility, working classes and peasantry. But there is no monarchy. So I have come up with a confederation of provinces, with each province ruled by a noble family, with many other noble families who are not ruling but are land owning. In terms of rule of law, the confederation is overseen by a council of nobles with each nobleman having a seat on the council. The nobles are responsible for keeping this hierarchy in place, protecting its people and keeping the peace. There is also a court culture where nobles are expected to hold events to show off their wealth and status, make political alliances and allow a culture of courtship between nobles who have come of age.

The country to the south has an absolute monarchy with a newly appointed arrogant, power-mad king who is the one who wages said brewing war.

Does this make sense? Does it matter that there is no monarchy but there are nobles? Are there any major oversights or flaws in your opinion?

Seems as good a setup as any. I think, in a good enough span of time, a monarch will show up, but that does not have to be the backdrop of the story. I'd be asking questions about a council, and how effective they might be, but...I can go with it just works for them.

I am pretty sure that there have been plenty of times where there were nobles and no strong King figure. A king might not be needed unless there was some great strife to overcome. Kind of reminds me of the unification of china, only without the unification.

My magical system, in basic terms consists of individuals who are born ‘gifted’, with magical powers. Individuals are gifted at random, and they can be noble or peasantry, although because of how my system works, there are more noble gifted individuals due to the social mobility that being gifted offers to those of the lower and peasant classes. This also means that anyone who is found to possess gifts are sent to institutions as soon as their gift shows itself (usually during puberty) and are expected to take an oath once they have finished their studies at around the age of eighteen to give their magical services to the country. They can be moved around the country so that the gifts are spread equally, for example of there are more healers needed in a certain province, or more more populated areas such as cities. Some caveats for gifted women are that if they marry into nobility or are already nobility and get married, they are not oblidged to carry on as a magical servant, and gifted men can join the armed forces and have the choice of using their gifts, or not.

Does this sit in line well enough with the political system? Does it make sense?

Seems fine to me. My question is, with the lack of a central authority, who is managing the equal division of magic types? I would suspect that would not happen efficiently, or at all.

And finally, warfare / armed forces. One name I came up with is the Waelburg Warriors with ‘Waelburg’ meaning valiant or brave in Old English. Problem is, I need a hierarchy, or maybe each province has their own version of this. Are there opportunities to become shieldmaidens? I just don’t know about this one. Magical servants would also be expected to give their services to any war.

Any opinions or thoughts would be helpful.

It could be that some have a greater need for 'armies' than others, and so some may have this and others not. Those in a war, or dealing with bandits or such, might have this, and a type of organization to it. Up to you if there are shield-maidens, but ill question it if the reasons are not there.


Anyway....the area that has me wanting the give the most input is other nations in the world that dont appear in the story, cause really things are connected, and stuff far away may domino into the current story. The nation to the south, may have a nation it its south, and they may also have hostilities, and nations just off the map, may be trading or having wars, and maybe even looking to see what other nations look weak. They may not be immediately helpful, but they might come in later and make some noise. In world building, stuff does not really happen in a vaccuum. I cannot really send my whole army at you if I still have to watch the south as well. So, for added complexity, I might want to keep in mind what some of those places might be like. Even if they dont appear in the story.

 

[Finchbearer]

It’s interesting that both of you so far have mentioned the potential for my country to eventually have a monarch because I’m considering this event being written into the plot down the line, and so I agree that this seems like a logical step, and it would be fun to write.

Why the motivation to write a country with no monarchy? It seemed to me more interesting to have different provinces with each their own ruling noble, with some provinces being very scarcely populated and other more so.

The armed forces bit seems to be a crux for me at the moment but I won’t be describing epic battle scenes I don’t think. More of the interactions and aftermath as my main characters are not fighting as warriors themselves.

I have a culture for my southern country and two southern provinces in the main country were once part of it, and there is a mixing of cultures therefore, but considering an entire world and how it inevitably has a sort of butterfly effect is something to consider when writing for sure.

 

[pmmg]

Well, there is always potential for a monarch...

I think this would be a likely evolution. It would just be human nature to think things would be easier if those nobles over there would agree, or...we have such a great need, we need someone who can act now, and not need everyone to agree. All the nobles getting along and keeping the status quo does not sound as likely to me.

It is human nature to form up into hierarchies. As Devor said, if there is no king on top of the big pryamid, there is just a bunch of smaller types on top of smaller pyramids. Some of those might be ripe for annexing....

 

[skip.knox]

It's worth stating that monarchy merely means single ruler. It's not a synonym for king.

As others have said, an elective monarchy should get you what you want, and you can have several takes on that--anything from merely choosing a war chief to a formal election process (e.g., Holy Roman Emperor). The one elected might be little more than a war leader, but could be a temporary dictator like in the old Roman Republic, or could be a monarch for life with full executive, legislative, and even judicial powers. Plenty of flexibility there.

I do have this question: in the absence of a king (that is, a hereditary monarch with some sort of divine associations), who makes the nobles noble? Why is this family noble and that one isn't? And if nobility is inherited, there needs to be some sort of mechanism to prevent the monarchy itself from likewise being hereditary. You could come up with some interesting possibilities here.

And an observation. Monarchs aren't much needed in practical terms. Most villages run themselves. So do towns. Monarchs tend to emerge more out of tensions within the elite, with either a clear winner (hereditary kingship) or an uneasy balance of power (elected monarchs). Meanwhile, the woodcutters and farmers and shoemakers just go about their business, hoping nobody important ever notices them.

So, much depends on the story you tell.

 

[Queshire]

I feel like the monarchy connection mostly comes from the fact that they're specifically called nobles. If you called them... I dunno, Patricians? Maesters? Or just some other term unique for your setting then you could otherwise keep everything the same and no one would question them being governed by a council rather than a king.

Still, if you're aiming for a monarchy then there's plenty of fun stuff you can do with it. I like the idea that they used to be ruled by a monarch but for one reason or another the throne's been empty all this time. Mythologizing such a story would help with national unity and set things up for when a new monarch is established later on.

 

[Aldarion]

It’s interesting that both of you so far have mentioned the potential for my country to eventually have a monarch because I’m considering this event being written into the plot down the line, and so I agree that this seems like a logical step, and it would be fun to write.

Why the motivation to write a country with no monarchy? It seemed to me more interesting to have different provinces with each their own ruling noble, with some provinces being very scarcely populated and other more so.

The armed forces bit seems to be a crux for me at the moment but I won’t be describing epic battle scenes I don’t think. More of the interactions and aftermath as my main characters are not fighting as warriors themselves.

I have a culture for my southern country and two southern provinces in the main country were once part of it, and there is a mixing of cultures therefore, but considering an entire world and how it inevitably has a sort of butterfly effect is something to consider when writing for sure.

Thing is, if you don't have a monarch, then - generally speaking - your country will not last long. Instead of a country with each province having its own ruling noble, you will end up having a gazillion minor principalities where each noble is essentially a monarch, and the overall country exists only in name if even that. Heck, such a thing could happen even with monarch being around! Historically, non-monarchical political systems - and especially any sort of republic or democracy - only really existed on level of a city or municipality (with few exceptions such as Republic of Poljica, but that too was quite small). And most of these usually answered to a monarch.

If you really don't want a monarch, then instead of looking to medieval Europe - which your description kinda sounds like - you should look at Roman Republic. But keep in mind the above: all the republics were usually very small. Roman Republic was not really a republic - Rome itself was a republic, and what we consider "Roman Republic" was basically an alliance of city-states headed by Rome, and later Rome's private empire. Essentially, Holy Roman Empire was as much of a republic as the Roman Republic (meaning Italy, not just Rome itself) was.

 

[Queshire]

A lot of those limitations are the result of the technology available though and the presence of magic, particularly communication magic changes things.

 

[Aldarion]

A lot of those limitations are the result of the technology available though and the presence of magic, particularly communication magic changes things.

Presence of communication magic however is just as likely to give rise to an absolute monarchy. What system will win depends largely on the economy: when merchants become strong enough to take power, you get a republic (e.g. French Revolution).

 

[Queshire]

I mean, it'd help an absolute monarchy, but I think an absolute monarchy would hit on diminishing returns from improved communication infrastructure far sooner than a republic.

 

[Devor]

My magical system, in basic terms consists of individuals who are born ‘gifted’, with magical powers. Individuals are gifted at random, and they can be noble or peasantry, although because of how my system works, there are more noble gifted individuals due to the social mobility that being gifted offers to those of the lower and peasant classes. This also means that anyone who is found to possess gifts are sent to institutions as soon as their gift shows itself (usually during puberty) and are expected to take an oath once they have finished their studies at around the age of eighteen to give their magical services to the country.

So, the above seems relevant to the political question. Who decides who the nobles are? Apparently the people with magic do a lot of that. And that word, social mobility, is important here. More social mobility at the top starts to push things away from a monarchy because the commoners are better represented.

Magic also changes all of the risk equations. Who suffers the most in a war changes in a magical war where the mages, who are your most useful people in the economy, are also the ones you have to risk in a battle. "This guy is worth a billion gold to my enchanted cattle feed industry, do I really want to risk all that by sending him off in a war?"

Taken together, I think that could also be used as a way of holding a confederation of provinces together, if that's the goal. The economic principles push them away from war and the need to sort of build up around a monarch.

This also brings to mind a thing from an anime, Magi, where a group of seven countries was held together by the principle "Neither conquer nor be conquered," where they basically swore off war except to protect each other (spoiler.... they found a loophole). Framing your system that way, as united countries or city-states instead of provinces, might curtail any shower-thought questions before they even arise.

 

[Prince of Spires]

To start with the first question asked, is it fine to only focus on one small part of the world: Yes, that is absolutely fine. In fact, I would argue that it's almost always better to do so than to do the reverse, try to build the whole world. By focussing on a single part, you can dive a lot deeper. You can really worry about the discussion going on here: why are nobles considered noble? that sort of thing. If you try to build a whole planet, with 50 countries you'll only go an inch deep on all of them, which will lead to a flat, generic world.

Consider that all the great worldbuilders have actually done the same. Tolkien only created a small corner of the world. Same with Robert Jordan. Raymond E. Feist started with a single country, and slowly expanded upon that as he put out more books.

There is little point in worldbuilding a country halfway across the world if the characters in your story don't know it exists and it doesn't influence your tale at all. Of course, note down any ideas you have about the wider world. Is there a mysterious country to the far east? Or indeed, a war-like nation to the south which might keep the southern neighbor busy for a while? But hints and vague ideas are good enough.

As for the country you're building, it sounds fine to me. I'm pretty sure any type of government we can come up with has been tried somewhere at some point in human history. Was it stable or succesful? Few systems have been. But that's as much about what people believe in and outside influences.

Noble families could simply be noble because they've been around for a long time, are rich enough to know that, and have made up some vague notion of being noble. The patrician families of Rome where such because they could trace their roots back to a bunch of man elected by Rome's founder. Is that a sensible reason? Not really. But it worked because they believed it did. And after a few 100 years of doing something one way it becomes very hard to change.

I wouldn't worry too much about it all making sense or not. As said, plenty of real systems didn't make sense when looked at from the outside. Just state that this is the system they use. What you should worry about is the consequences of your system. For instance, a confederation of provinces will have consequences for how it wages war. After all, a northern provice far from the border will care a lot less about the war with the south, and thus be a lot less inclined to actually help. After all, if they help, they will weaken themselves for no gain. If they win, the southern provinces will gain territory or favorable trading rights or whatever. And if they lose they will have lost soldiers they could otherwise use to defend themselves. That sort of thing. Working out the internal politics can add a lot of depth to the tale.

If you're looking for a working example of a confederacy, you could consider the European Union. While it's a modern thing, it does show how you can make it work, even with countries with vastly different ideas and cultures.

 

[Finchbearer]

Well this thread has risen some issues that are good to have a think on. First of all, I’ve been trying to think of systems that don’t have a monarchy, and all I can think of is modern day France, that still has a system of provinces, with each their own culture and remaining aristocracy, but are now governed by a president (I think), and I’m also reminded of the Soviet Union / USSR, that was *meant* to be a communist system, with obviously no monarchy and vast amounts of different countries and cultures within it. Alderion has mentioned the Roman Republic also.

Someone brought up social mobility, and this is an aspect that will certainly have a knock on effect in all areas of society. There are obvious benefits to become land owning, or at least working class. But I’d need to consider just how the peasantry stay peasants, and my initial idea is that it’s almost feudal in that they work the land of the nobility, but have no rights to it nor freedom of movement, trapping them in that cycle of farming poverty. Being gifted with magic has it advantages, but this also brings up other issues that need to be thought out, such as institutionalisation and potential issues with non-optional service.

Now, I have mentioned that I have in mind one of my characters to eventually become a king, and a rival from another equally powerful ruling noble family, who also happen to own land that is heavily mined, hence giving that province lots of wealth. The fight to a theoretical throne happens as a result of war, or the aftermath of the war with the southern country.

There are a few other things that I have to think about too, such as the magical system, to make this far more comprehensive, and not only that, but to think about the knock on effect my system will have on the people of this country. For example, the marriage caveat for gifted women who marry nobility - this could then become an issue with women seeing this as an out, or more disturbingly, blackmail and forced marriage becoming a problem amongst the land owning nobles.

My warriors or armed forces need to be decided upon too, but as I won’t be going into tremendous detail with this, seeing as I’m no enthusiast or expert in this area, this doesn’t need to be thought out down to the last detail. Just enough so that it can be logically explained away. Only issue is that one of my main characters elder brother and father are heavily involved in the armed forces, and so this will need to be fleshed out some more. I expect I’d need a general ‘army’, and seafaring fleet and my Waelburg Warriors, who would be my equivalent of a marine corps or the SAS.

 

[Prince of Spires]

If you want another valid historical example, conside the Dutch Republic - Wikipedia. It's actually a precursor of the French republic, and a relatively successful one (though it only lasted 200 years or so). It very much fits your description (though it's probably slightly later in time). A set of provinces working together, each with their own nobility and a sort of central government.

Of course, the United States also fit your description, but that's a lot more modern.

 

[Finchbearer]

If you want another valid historical example, conside the Dutch Republic - Wikipedia. It's actually a precursor of the French republic, and a relatively successful one (though it only lasted 200 years or so). It very much fits your description (though it's probably slightly later in time). A set of provinces working together, each with their own nobility and a sort of central government.

Of course, the United States also fit your description, but that's a lot more modern.

Kinda forgot about the USA, don’t know why!

 

[Queshire]

With the mandatory service for mages one thing I would recommend would be try to set things up so that actually doing the mandatory service advances the mage's own interests even if they're nobles.

 

[skip.knox]

There are scads of examples, dating all the way back to Athens. Rome provides a good example of moving from monarchy to a republic then back to a monarchy. But really, examples are everywhere.

 

[Arielcat]

I say ‘world’ because really I’m currently deep into building a comprehensive country rather than entire world, which brings me to my first question: I intend to only focus on one principle country where the story is set, though it is vast, and the northern part of the bordering country to the south, with whom there shall be an ensuing war with. It makes sense to me to only include these factors on the visual map, but obviously there is still the rest of the globe that I haven’t included due to its irrelevance to the story. Does this bother you, or does it make sense?

Also, it’s taken me quite a time to figure out the political system for my world. I have set it in an early medieval inspired northern hemisphere country, that has a belief system centered around a mixture of Celtic, Old English and Norse culture and mythologies. There is also a system of nobility, working classes and peasantry. But there is no monarchy. So I have come up with a confederation of provinces, with each province ruled by a noble family, with many other noble families who are not ruling but are land owning. In terms of rule of law, the confederation is overseen by a council of nobles with each nobleman having a seat on the council. The nobles are responsible for keeping this hierarchy in place, protecting its people and keeping the peace. There is also a court culture where nobles are expected to hold events to show off their wealth and status, make political alliances and allow a culture of courtship between nobles who have come of age.

The country to the south has an absolute monarchy with a newly appointed arrogant, power-mad king who is the one who wages said brewing war.

Does this make sense? Does it matter that there is no monarchy but there are nobles? Are there any major oversights or flaws in your opinion?

My magical system, in basic terms consists of individuals who are born ‘gifted’, with magical powers. Individuals are gifted at random, and they can be noble or peasantry, although because of how my system works, there are more noble gifted individuals due to the social mobility that being gifted offers to those of the lower and peasant classes. This also means that anyone who is found to possess gifts are sent to institutions as soon as their gift shows itself (usually during puberty) and are expected to take an oath once they have finished their studies at around the age of eighteen to give their magical services to the country. They can be moved around the country so that the gifts are spread equally, for example of there are more healers needed in a certain province, or more more populated areas such as cities. Some caveats for gifted women are that if they marry into nobility or are already nobility and get married, they are not oblidged to carry on as a magical servant, and gifted men can join the armed forces and have the choice of using their gifts, or not.

Does this sit in line well enough with the political system? Does it make sense?

And finally, warfare / armed forces. One name I came up with is the Waelburg Warriors with ‘Waelburg’ meaning valiant or brave in Old English. Problem is, I need a hierarchy, or maybe each province has their own version of this. Are there opportunities to become shieldmaidens? I just don’t know about this one. Magical servants would also be expected to give their services to any war.

Any opinions or thoughts would be helpful.

About your nobles and their councils.
That sort of reminds me of mine except that mine actually are royals.
And some nobles too for good measure here and there.
You have an interesting fantasy feudal system.

 

[The Dark One]

Does this make sense? Does it matter that there is no monarchy but there are nobles? Are there any major oversights or flaws in your opinion?

It's not that different from proto-feudal Europe where local warlords were effectively a law unto themselves regardless of whether any far-off monarch claimed sovereignty over them.

The weakness with this system is that a warmongering despot to the south would have a much simpler task in conquering them one by one than if they were united, whether as a federation or under a monarch.

Of course, that might be exactly the kind of problem that would help your story.