Culture of continents based on geography

[Rosemary Tea]

Was it? Using Star Trek again, the vulcans were all logical, and the klingons were all warlike. It worked and they got a big franchise out of it. Maybe it would not fly today, but most of it comes down to execution anyway. Neither the vulcans or the klingons make sense for an entire world. No world would have such a lack of diversity and function.

But that's describing the dominant characteristics of those cultures, specifically, the members of those cultures who interact with the human space travelers. That's not describing every last facet of their society. Presumably, Vulcans and Klingons have households, nurseries, farms (or some way of acquiring food), hospitals (or some way of healing), and everything else.

If we translated their characteristics to gods, in a polytheistic pantheon, maybe the Vulcans' head god would be the god of logic and the Klingons' head god would be the god of war, but they wouldn't be the only gods those societies worshipped. Or maybe different segments of their societies would primarily worship different gods. The Klingon warriors might primarily worship the god of war, but Klingon midwives would pray to the goddess of childbirth and Klingon farmers would honor the agricultural gods and Klingon merchants would worship the god of commerce, and so on. We don't meet any Klingons who aren't warriors because the non-warriors aren't the ones the space travelers see. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

[SinghSong]

I perhaps wouldn't mind if I'm paid enough for it, but as we both know I won't.

I can of course change the pond's radius a little, perhaps 40-50km(?).

I belive I can add some hills in the northern region for production of coffee and tea, and in the plains use 10-15% land for production of crops which can only be grown in hot areas and lots of water.

Anyways thanks for the feedback

IMHO, in keeping with the theme of it being the continent of the God of Control/Dominance, the continent's equatorial position, and the concept of a large body of water in the center of the continent effectively being the source of the alluvial flows of water to the ocean which the inhabitants of the continent mostly rely upon, rather than having the 'huge pond' be surrounded by marshland, I'd replace it with a volcanically heated lake, situated in the caldera of a massive volcanic peak, comparable in size and height to that of Mt Olympus Mons on Mars (which is roughly 21km high, and has a caldera with a diameter of roughly 60-80km, a maximum depth of up to 3.2 km, and an average depth of roughly 1.8km- which, if you filled it with water, would give you a total volume roughly equivalent to half the combined totals of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron)- with the God himself said to keep residence and keep watch over the continent's people from above the clouds which form above the lake.

Surrounding this lake, and the narrow 'warm zone/band' along its banks, you have vast fields of glaciers running down the sides of this shield volcano, all the way to the snow line (above c.6km elevation at the equator, where this peak is located- making it impossible for anyone to survive attempting to traverse them, and reaching its summit, without the aid of magic and/or technology), which then melt and provide the source for dozens of vast rivers. This volcanic mountain peak creates a rain shadow and desertification effect on the leeward side of it (and from the range of smaller mountain peaks continuing southwards and/or northwards from it), akin to those conditions created by the Andes across the 'Arid Diagonal', but across a far more vast area and to an even greater extent, due to the mountain/range's far greater size and height (but with the glaciers which flow downwards from this side still sufficient to feed multiple rivers with discharges similar to those of the Ganges or Indus Rivers in our world). And the increased rain/snowfall also greatly increases the volume of the glaciers and outflow of the rivers on the windward side, in a manner akin to the Amazon Basin, creating multiple rivers which rivals or even exceed the discharge of the Amazon River in this world.

This geographical arrangement means that, on both sides, the peoples' cultures, societies and lives are completely dominated by, and reliant upon, these rivers, and the God atop the Mountain from which they're all attributed as emanating directly from (and who's also worshiped by many as the collective living embodiment of the rivers, in a manner paralleling the great river basins of India, Northern Africa and South America- or alternatively, if the original Four Elder Gods of the pantheon are already dead/further ascended, and there are multiple subsidiary/younger Gods all seeking to claim their mantles, then each of these Rivers could have given rise to its own God/Goddess, as the patron deities of the civilizations which arose in their basins, with the subsequent contest between them to become the new God of Control/Dominance being played out through wars between all of these civilizations to conquer the entire continent, and thus achieve absolute dominion over all the others). Would this make sense, as a continent with feasible culture/ multiple cultures based on its divine geography?

 

[Rosemary Tea]

This geographical arrangement means that, on both sides, the peoples' cultures, societies and lives are completely dominated by, and reliant upon, these rivers, and the God atop the Mountain from which they're all attributed as emanating directly from (and who's also worshipped by many as the collective living embodiment of the rivers, in a manner paralleling the great river basins of India, Northern Africa and South America). Wouldn't this make the most sense?

What does that have to do with control and dominance?

If anything, that kind of geography would give rise to a religion based on surrender, a fatalistic worldview. Similar to Islam. There's no controlling the river. The god associated with the river would indeed be the dominant god, because all life thoroughly depends on Him/Her/Them, but control wouldn't be a cultural value. Probably wouldn't even be on the radar, because people would be keenly aware that they have no control. They would probably attempt to placate the god, pray that the river will flood enough to adequately irrigate their crops but not so much that it will wash away their homes, but every year, that would be a crapshoot. Some years the flooding would be too much. Some years, not enough. No matter what the people do, River God plays by its own rules.

 

[SinghSong]

What does that have to do with control and dominance?

If anything, that kind of geography would give rise to a religion based on surrender, a fatalistic worldview. Similar to Islam. There's no controlling the river. The god associated with the river would indeed be the dominant god, because all life thoroughly depends on Him/Her/Them, but control wouldn't be a cultural value. Probably wouldn't even be on the radar, because people would be keenly aware that they have no control. They would probably attempt to placate the god, pray that the river will flood enough to adequately irrigate their crops but not so much that it will wash away their homes, but every year, that would be a crapshoot. Some years the flooding would be too much. Some years, not enough. No matter what the people do, River God plays by its own rules.

Because if the God Him(/Her)self is "The God of Control and Dominance", then how else could they be worshipped other than through the followers/worshippers surrendering control, and accepting the God's absolute dominion over themselves? What less would a "God of Control and Dominance" expect and demand from their mortal subjects than absolute, fatalistic subservience?

If those are the defining attributes of the Gods themselves, then it rarely, if ever, follows that those are going to be the defining attributes of those who worship said Gods, as can be seen by taking a look at any historical culture with a pantheon- most commonly, the extolled virtues for the peasants/commonfolk in such societies were the polar opposites of those possessed by their Gods. Even more so if the Gods are (or were) actually real, and have the power to make themselves the Gods of those things. Ancient Athens, for instance, was named after the patron deity of Athena, the Goddess of Knowledge; but whilst Athena was extolled as by far the strongest warrior and greatest leader among all the Goddesses, whose power was deemed to surpass that of her father Zeus and of all other Olympians, those who supposedly worshipped her in Athens still disempowered women to a greater extent than any of other Greek city states, and gave women fewer rights there than they had anywhere else.

Knowledge wasn't shared, and disseminated, but hoarded and monopolized there- Plato's famous Academy, progenitor of the modern University, never actually taught anyone anything, but instead only admitted people if they themselves could offer knowledge which wasn't already available there, as their mandatory 'civic duty'. And all those who refused to participate in this, and in other public affairs, were socially outcast and condemned as 'idiotes' (the origin of the term 'idiot'). Rather than bothering to foster knowledge via educating the populace, they instead took every scrap of intellectual property and knowledge which they could find, from every other culture they could take it from, and took pride in shamelessly pirating it themselves- as Plato himself put it, "What the Greeks borrow from foreigners, they perfect".

And you could easily have a society revolving around the worship of a 'God of Law and Order' which has little or no concept of civil or common law at all- they have a God, the proclaimed God of Law and Order, who definitely existED, and under whose divine law and imposition of karmic order, all those who deviated from it were instantly assigned divine karmic punishment. This could, and almost certainly would, be used to justify or condone committing any actions which one doesn't get divinely punished for. And with the God's demise, along with the cessation of said God's divine punishment for all wrongdoing and misdeeds on that continent, since the common presumption by the mortal population would be that said God is immortal and must therefore still exist (since they're still worshipping that God and all), those acts which don't invoke divine karmic retribution, and would thus be deemed acceptable according to their deity, would be "any of them"- ushering in an age of total anarchy, where literally anything and everything imaginable is deemed to be divinely judged as entirely legal...

 

[pmmg]

I initially started off with this seems heavy handed. I get images of dark sied when i think of a god of dominance and control. And images of a perky princess leia saying the more you tighten you grip the more that will slip from your fingers.

 

[Rosemary Tea]

Because if the God Him(/Her)self is "The God of Control and Dominance", then how else could they be worshipped other than through the followers/worshippers surrendering control, and accepting the God's absolute dominion over themselves? What less would a "God of Control and Dominance" expect and demand from their mortal subjects than absolute, fatalistic subservience?

If those are the defining attributes of the Gods themselves, then it rarely, if ever, follows that those are going to be the defining attributes of those who worship said Gods, as can be seen by taking a look at any historical culture with a pantheon- most commonly, the extolled virtues for the peasants/commonfolk in such societies were the polar opposites of those possessed by their Gods.

But whatever a god is the god of isn't its personality, but what it gives the world. Zeus, for example, is the god of lightning, among other things: he throws lightning bolts. He makes thunderstorms happen. (And does plenty else, but the stories about his exploits deal with personality traits, not so much what he brings the world.)

Across pantheons, you petition the deity of war if you want to be a good warrior or have good luck in battle. If you're a fisherman, you petition the deity of the sea, in hopes that you'll get a good catch and not get drowned in the process. If you're trying to conceive, you petition the deity of fertility. If you're a farmer, you petition the deity of grain for a good harvest. And maybe the deity of rainstorms, so your crops get the rain they need. And so on and so forth.

From that, it logically follows that a god of dominance and control would confer on its followers the ability and means to take dominance and control. If it didn't, it wouldn't be called the god of dominance and control. It might be an all powerful, all controlling god, that everyone owes subservience too (heavy handed, but perhaps a heavy handed god is what fits the story best), but if it's the god of anything, it would be the god of whatever gift it gives its followers. Or whatever curse, as the case may be.

 

[Queshire]

The description for the control/dominance continent sounds like it'd be a better fit for law & order. Rivers form natural borders for kingdoms, provinces, states or whatever you want to do with the continent. They're also useful for trade and the exchange of information. That would make it easier to establish and maintain a law based culture.

As for promoting dominance? Hmmmm.... wide plains perhaps? Without rivers or mountain ranges to form natural borders then expansion and maintaining your borders would primarily rely on strength of arms. It'd also encourage the creation of artificial borders such as lines of forts or stone walls.

 

[Rosemary Tea]

The description for the control/dominance continent sounds like it'd be a better fit for law & order. Rivers form natural borders for kingdoms, provinces, states or whatever you want to do with the continent.

And rivers regularly change their boundaries, through flooding. There have been some complex border disputes between the U.S. and Mexico for that very reason.

As for promoting dominance? Hmmmm.... wide plains perhaps? Without rivers or mountain ranges to form natural borders then expansion and maintaining your borders would primarily rely on strength of arms. It'd also encourage the creation of artificial borders such as lines of forts or stone walls.

That sounds like a warrior culture. Control and dominance could be part of the warrior ethos, but I would expect a warrior culture to primarily worship a war god.

 

[Queshire]

I can't really think of any control/dominance gods from real world mythologies so I went with something close while still distinct from the other three. Hm, this might verge on being political, but I've been thinking about the westward expansion and idea of manifest destiny from 'MURCIAN history.

 

[pmmg]

And rivers regularly change their boundaries, through flooding. There have been some complex border disputes between the U.S. and Mexico for that very reason.

Isn't this the island with the big pond in the middle? I already asked where it comes from. Must be something that feeds it, but if it is some kind of strange anomaly, may be the rivers don't flood very much.

I think a God of control and dominance is a strange inclusion in this. Again, I might ask, if this god as defeated and slain, might the worshippers be looking for another course to deal with whatever did it? They kind of have to switch to the gods that remain, or find a better answer. How does the OP'er see this as fitting into to his story?

 

[Rosemary Tea]

Isn't this the island with the big pond in the middle? I already asked where it comes from. Must be something that feeds it, but if it is some kind of strange anomaly, may be the rivers don't flood very much.

It could be spring fed. If it's in a basin surrounded by mountains, it could also be filled by snow melt. Then the lake could be the source of the rivers, not the other way around. Like Lake Tanganyika is the source of the Nile.

I think a God of control and dominance is a strange inclusion in this.

I agree. It just doesn't make sense to have a god of that. A god that is controlling and dominating, sure, but a god that specifically confers control and dominance, and is specifically worshipped for that rather than for the gains made through control and dominance? Not how deities work.

 

[Rosemary Tea]

I can't really think of any control/dominance gods from real world mythologies so I went with something close while still distinct from the other three. Hm, this might verge on being political, but I've been thinking about the westward expansion and idea of manifest destiny from 'MURCIAN history.

I think Manifest Destiny is as close as you're going to get. But it was never framed as a control and dominance thing, at least not overtly. Instead, it was, basically, "we're the benevolent race bringing civilization and democracy and Christianity to the rest of the world." No, we're not controlling, we're just giving all those poor savages our wonderful gifts.

It's also a primarily secular ideal. The religious bit is the "God gave us this destiny" part. But, this is monotheistic God, not the god of anything in particular. Try to work in a pantheon, and it falls apart.

 

[TheKillerBs]

Sounds like a Divine Right of Kings/Mandate of Heaven kinda deal and it baffles me that y'all are acting like this is somehow not how religious conferral of power works