A lot of it depends. I'll do preview and then you miss it...

I also still get this warning.



That's also how I imagined it going XD

This message was deleted by the player at 23:51, Fri 17 May.

I've just been randomly recommended this incredible video on YouTube.

It's about ethnomusicology, a field I've never even heard of. Specifically, it's focused on how a lot of eastern musical tradition is destructively compressed (in western media) into a single sound that is jarringly inaccurate to actual traditions.

I actually have some Moroccan heritage, and so even though I have no connection to that culture or side of the family, I feel somewhat strange about not actually being able to differentiate any of these manifold traditions from the general hodge-podge in the popular zeitgeist.

---

Link to the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR511iAedYU

As a fair warning, this video has some rather foul language. However, if you're fine with that it's also absolutely hilarious on top of being thought provoking. I've been struck with full body laughter several times and I'm not even finished the video yet.

---

I'm mentioning this here because it's giving me a lot of inspiration to do some worldbuilding regarding music in this setting. Specifically in South Kalatoria, which is clearly inspired by the Middle East - though I'd like to do some more research to differentiate between these influences given the revelations of the video regarding 'orientalism'.

Sadly, I have truly no musical talent and I'm not even good at understanding music theory, but I still want to try and explore musical traditions in this game world.

Another thing I'm not sure about is how much I want to draw from real-world influences. As the game world is totally separate from the real world, I'm not actually sure if it would be inaccurate to even have the same framework regarding music.

As someone who has studied both psychology and sociology (not to a professional extent, but I think I know more than a layman) I have some understanding of which aspects of human social behavior are intrinsic and which are culturally-informed. However, I've no idea when it comes to musical tradition. I'm sure it has some kind of biological roots, but I don't have any intricate knowledge of what that may be.

---

If any of you have some musical knowledge, I'd really super appreciate it if you could explain the basics of music theory to me, or at least link me to relevant resources. It's something I find hard to grasp, for whatever reason. Maybe I'm tone deaf? LOL

---

Overall, though my worldbuilding usually starts with "This would be cool" I always try my best to ensure that it has solid anthropological reasoning behind it. Of course, these things can be confounded by the presence of fantastical elements, but given the relatively low-fantasy of the current world setting, it's reasonable that things would be mostly recognizable.

Also, I do have plans for species other than humans in the world. However, they will be so distinct from humans that it might be impossible to mutually understand one another. They will have bodily and mental structures hugely divorced from humanity. Mystical elements will probably also be intrinsic to many of them, which would further alienate them from our real-world understanding of anthropology.

---

For anyone who shares similar interests of in-depth worldbuilding, or for those just curious how I come up with these settings, here's a short list of terms that somewhat inform my approach in certain regards:

Historical materialism - Hasn't really come up since there's hasn't been any historical societal shifts. My main takeaway from this theory of history is that you're not often going to have huge societal shifts driven by ideology alone. There needs to be a material incentive for these changes. Of course, ideology will still play a huge role.

Since this is a fantasy world, exceptions include individuals with unnatural charisma, or mass mind manipulation.

Pragmatism/realpolitik - As above, but from a behavioral or political perspective, not one of historical analysis. That's a wordy way to say that it's the same concept as above just from a different perspective.

While we will certainly have some arrogant young master types - in fact we've already seen one in Dormatteo "Freck" Albas in the Denaster thread - the majority of nobility in most cultures will have a minimum level of ability. There will be few cases of the classic Xianxia trope "I killed a guy so they sent a guy after me, and I killed him. So, they sent a slightly stronger guy, who I killed. This repeated until I was up against the guy who had sent all the guys".

Given the ever-present danger the elite face of being overthrown not by mass revolution or their peers, but by mere individuals with a personal vendetta against them - those who are able to throw away their pride when necessary are more likely to hold political power - based purely on the fact the others have a higher chance of being slain.

Things like "Prima Nocta" (google at own risk) will certainly exist in some places - but a lot of other societies with elites will see the wisdom in maintaining less cruel and heavy-handed behavior towards the public. They are less likely to have their lineages wiped out by a single commoner that they pissed off and inspired to go on a training arc followed by a revenge arc.

We'll call this the "Principle of Trope-Awareness" because thats funny as fuck lmao

Conflict theory - Almost every society (at least the human ones) will have inequal socioeconomic classes. While the status quo will often be maintained for long periods of time, unrest and even outright conflict will be common between groups.

Since this is a fantasy world, exceptions include the few oppressing the many through personal superhuman power (in the real world, since anyone can be killed no matter how much wealth or social power they have, the military is the main tool of oppression by the state. In a fantasy world where individuals can have greater power than crowds, oppression may become truly inescapable - a tragic, horrifying fate), as well as hieromancy or 'law magic' which would basically be large-scale reality warping intended to align 'civilization' to a set of certain principles artificially.

In cases where these effects are present, the Principle of Trope-Awareness might not develop naturally, and in fact might be actively suppressed in the case of mass hieromantic enchantments over society.

---

In contrast to the above methods, I specifically try to avoid relying too heavily on the following, since I think they lack anthropological accuracy (however given the fantastical nature of the setting, they have appropriate use cases):

Great Man Theory - To my knowledge, this is largely regarded outdated in the intellectual community. That this plays on some inherent human cognitive biases may explain it's lasting prominence. Many fantasy settings have relied way too heavily on this theory.

Since this is a fantasy world, Great Man Theory may actually have a lot more truth behind it than it does in reality. People may be born superior to others (in terms of mystical power, not moral worth) and single individuals can personally make greater waves than they can in reality.

If you're thinking 'but Alexander the Great accomplished so much?' then I'd like to point out that though he was surely a good leader, it was his ARMY that actually accomplished things for him. He didn't personally slaughter all his enemies in combat. This kind of reasoning is sort of reminiscent of the ecological fallacy, to be honest.

^ this could be seen as merely pedantic, but if one isn't careful with how they label, categorize and attribute - they will lose sight of a lot of  the complexity and depth of history. History belongs to all of humanity, after all, not just certain representatives.

Given the nature of a fantasy world, historical textbooks in Kalatoria would probably take great effort to phrase things like "The General of Foo led an army of five hundred men to capture Fort Bar" - and would NEVER phrase it as , "The General of Foo captured Fort Bar" - the latter could be seen as ambiguous, since it's actually a possibility that future scholars would think the General of Foo may have been a superhuman warrior.

Teleology/Anthropocentrism - Not used at all except in very special instances.

Objective morality - IRL it's a pretty big divide between moral objectivists and moral subjectivists. I'm strongly in the latter camp, but I'm not here to make arguments. The reason I don't use this in worldbuilding is because it's not useful and makes for more same-y cultures, not because of any of the essential issues I have with it. Basically, the results of using this are poor, rather than the reasons to use it being unfavorable from my POV.

A huge exception to this is DND-style alignment systems.

In fact, while I don't use objective morality to design human cultures (nobody should) - that doesn't mean that in a fantasy world with mystical elements, objective morality might not actually exist.

I can't get into the details without spoiling so much of the lore, but objective morality will play a cosmic role - in matters outside the society of mortals.

Modernism - this means like a million things but i take it to mean "using only one approach". I like to be flexible in my worldbuilding, because it lets me try the most things to see what works. Everything has it's place, at least when it comes to fantasy writing

---

One last thing

Prejudice (racism, sexism, etc) will certainly exist in the world. Systems of oppression based on those lines may also arise (racial slavery, patriarchy/matriarchy, etc)

BUT

As this is a fantasy world with significant fundamental differences between some kinds of entities, there is actually a highly significant chance that society would be more progressive and understanding of minor differences like race and sex. What difference is there between a Ghanbaran and a Sedorian, when they are faced with needing to understand and coexist with an entirely different species?

Hopefully I'm managing to express that idea well. It's not that bigotry won't exist, but that philosophies of understanding the other would be likely to emerge much more rapidly and potently than it did in our real world history.
ake DND mind-flayers for example. They are undoubtedly sapient [and in fact may be literally cognitively superior to humans, a different topic]. However, they are impossible to coexist with. Unless a society has a policy of killing all nonhumans (something which may be more or less feasible/popular depending on the abundancy and behavioral tendencies of those species) they would need to find a way to determine which species are worthy of moral consideration.

In the real world, we morally distinguish ourselves from animals based on our 'intelligence' or 'ability to speak' or 'capacity for culture' - but if there were other species on this planet which were fully capable of all these things, plus mutually communicating and engaging in warfare against humanity, we would not be able to use these labels to distinguish between 'people' and 'nonpeople'

If it's a species we can coexist with, in many cases we would attempt to. Creatures like ilithids, ogres, vampires, werewolves, and others - some of these we could maybe coexist with - and ultimately I think it would come down to our ability to empathize with one another.

Eldritch creatures might be 'friendly' in the sense that they're not harmful, but if they have completely different mental structures to us, it would lead to a sense of unbearable alienation - and I don't believe they could cohabitate within society, though they might avoid conflict.

What of ogres or vampires? Maybe they have urges that lead to antihuman behavior (think the breeding instincts of certain kinds of modern Japanese monsters, or the biological need to drink blood of vampires) - but if those were fulfilled maybe they could otherwise coexist in society?

...

There is infinite complexity here, and no perfect answers. However, I think it would all be very likely to exist in a framework that recognizes and cares an awful lot about what exactly defines each species in terms of mentality and behavior. This would also lead to a lot of insight among humans regarding their own kind. People would have more confident answers "what makes us human".

---

---

---

Alright, that was an absolutely gargantuan OOC post.
I definitely got carried away writing about all sorts of things.

Feel free to skip all of this, it's only for those interested in peeking behind the curtain, so to speak.

I'll try and respond to Tybe later today, but I woke up at 4 PM and its already 8 PM, so 'later today' could mean technically tomorrow EST!

With that, the Four Eternals of Kalatoria have gathered for the first time!

From now on, I'll keep posting as Froggychum for GMing stuff, but I'll post as Sigismund (NPC) for his actions...

All that stuff Sigismund said is gibberish by the way. I'm a bit tired of conlanging at the moment, so I just went with sounds that seemed appropriate for Nodavik. I might change it later if I decide to make it actually carry meaning.

In world though, he is actually saying something, I just didn't want to translate it xD

OK So I suspect other people won't be that interested in this. Me... this is something I think about quite a lot. Well many of those topics anyway. I'm raising these thoughts for discussion. My suggestion is that you make a second OOC thread if you want to chat about them so that we don't give people not interested 'huge walls of text'. An OOC thread is better than a PM because others could well be interested


My feelsing on this are different. Of course this is just opinion, and I'm just raising it here for discussion.

Race and Sex discrimintation are different in kind I think. Race discrimination is because 'they are different to us'. It almost doesn't matter how big that difference is. It can be skin colour, it can be racial, it can be because they wear different clothes and listen to a different type of music, or follow a different football team. There is the argument of 'we need to stick together' if the the other races are 'better' in some way and oppressive. but historically there are lots of examples of (say) Germanic tribes fighting each other even when there are big threats out there.

Sex descrimination on the other hand is because woman are physically weaker and have something that men want. This physical difference is particularly visible when women are very pregnant. Discriminiation here isn't about 'fear because of being difference' it's because 'I want sex, and you can't stop me'. There are cultures where woman have not just been chattals. The Celts for example. But actually I think all of those are proto-historical cultures: one where we don't actually have many records, only the records written by their enemies. (I might be wrong here: that's just an impression I have) And having 'women in charge' is an obvious derisory tactic.


So just something for you to think about. Where did the ideology come from? Sometimes from a single great person.

I think the Muslim explosion after the arrival of Mohammed can't be explained this way. His ideology came from nowhere. Westeners typically aren't aware of him with the current 'demonisation of islam' (ok that's being going on for 1000 years+ so nothing new). He introduced women's rights, the idea of 'equality and brotherhood', a huge and massive change to the idea of 'what is right and wrong'. He emphasized justice, compassion, and the welfare of the less fortunate, challenging the existing norms where the powerful often oppressed the weak. This was most definitely not the norm of the time. He introduced principles of conflict resolution and negotiation, favoring peaceful settlements over blood feuds and tribal wars.

And look at a map of the world even today, and see where the things he personally invented (or were given to him) are beleived. There are 2 billion followers even now. If he'd not existed... it's hard to see what history would be like, but it would be very different (Maybe not in Western Europe/America/China... but look at the full quarter of the world that follow his way)

And remember the ideology he personally created did not exist before him.

Alexander the Great
Let's take the example of Alexander. As you say he was great. His father had the same troops and his successors did. They didn't do anything even remotely the same. They didn't do things like Alexandar at the seige of Malli where he personally scaled the walls in front of his men and drove them to desparation to save him. Most importantly though Alexandar's approach to governance was unique to the world. Invented by him.

He sought to integrate the cultures of the conquered territories with Greek culture. This policy is often referred to as "Hellenization." He encouraged marriages between his soldiers and local women, adopted some local customs, and founded cities that served as administrative centers and spread Greek culture throughout his empire. This approach helped to maintain stability and fostered a sense of unity within his diverse empire. His father didn't do this... This came from him

Now this unique governance and crazy levels of bravery and ambition were not about his 'great army'.  His ability to adapt his strategies to different terrains and foes was unparalleled. The Battle of Gaugamela in 331 BCE is a prime example where Alexander used brilliant tactics to defeat a numerically superior Persian army led by Darius III. His strategic acumen allowed him to conquer vast territories and secure decisive victories against formidable opponents.

In other words: he conquered foes much better than him because he was a military genius full of charisma and greatness. And then introduced, out of nowhere, a totally new governance scheme.

If he hadn't lived then the whole of that part of the world for the next few hundred years would have been difference. I don't think he's as big an example of change as Mohammed or the Emperor Qin, but he's an example you named.

Ghenghis Khan
Before Genghis Khan, the Mongol tribes were fragmented and often engaged in internal conflicts. Temujin (Genghis Khan's birth name) managed to unite these tribes through a combination of diplomacy, alliances, and military victories. He did several things that were massively innovative. Let's just look at the way he changed 'command and control'

• Implementation of the Yassa legal code for governance and military discipline
• Establishment of the Yam system, a network of relay stations for communication and trade
• Meritocratic system for promotions based on ability and loyalty

Not only were these totally unique... He then did more things that were alien to the Mongol culture before that. Introducing religious tolerance. Encouraging cultural exchange and integration of diverse people. Especially the latter

Before him you had tribal chaos. Lawless lands full of banditry. During his empire a virgin could walk from one end of the silk road to the other carrying a bag of gold and have both treasures intact at the end. All of that innovation and change came because he existed as a single powerful figure. And again it was because of his huge personal charisma and drive and ambition. The changes he made did not come from Mongol culture but from him.

So yeah... I think any model of history that doesn't include 'great people' is not a good model of history. Just four examples: Mohammed, Alexander, Temujin, The first Emperor Qin (just go 'wow' when you see what he personally did)... are I think enough to demonstrate that

People and Non people
Interesting thoughts here.  I've done the wall of text thing too. So I'll stop here.

---

So very cool!

Well, I wasn't really looking to have a conversation about whether any of these ideas are good or bad (hence why I didn't make any prescriptive arguments), just letting it be known what I use. Wasn't really expecting to get counterexamples.

If we wanna talk about this, it's fine though

I'll just say that the main issues regarding Great Man Theory isn't that anyone argues no individuals have had a greater impact on history than others, but that focusing heavily on specific figures is a bad (incomplete) way to learn history, and it also ties into a lot of negative ideas. The main ones that come to mind are that a lot of reductionism can occur if one frames things solely through important figures, and that the idea that "some people are inherently superior to others" is basically the essence of supremacy arguments.
~~ ~~
Overall, your examples do show that some people are incredibly creative. I'm not arguing you can't come up with new ideas outside of your preexisting context. Trends are just trends. It's ecological fallacy to assume that any individual will have the characteristics of the group.

The only thing I would push back against is that these people were 'born' special. It's impossible to know their stories since they aren't currently alive, but I think it's more likely they developed those skills or ideas over their lifetime.

When it comes to comparing humans, we're maybe 10% nature and 90% nurture. Except in cases of untreatable psychological illnesses, people aren't born with a tendency to good or evil. That's all cultural. Brain chemistry isn't directly affected by your genes, after all.

I'm not saying we're all 100% Tabula Rasa, but rather that the vast majority of differences in human personality and behaviors are determined during our lives.

People can have natural talents, sure, but these can be fed or starved based on the society they live in.

Basically, even if everyone is unique, thinking that we're fundamentally different in quality can only lead to bad outcomes.

This all only applies when comparing humans to humans. When comparing a human to a dog, our biological differences stand out more since dogs don't have the capacity to develop culture.

In the case of fantasy species (the kind that are true alien species, not the kind that are just recolored humans) vs humans - it would be a mix of both. They would have a different biological basis, and this would lead them to have a largely distinct expression of culture from us (not wholly).

--

On the matter of racism and sexism being different, it may be the case.
Certainly, racism comes from "fear of the other" - especially, a big part of modern racism is based on male sexual insecurity.

But I don't think sexism is really about sex, in the same way that rape isn't about sex.

I would guess that sexism has more to do with expectations of gender roles.

Indeed there is a physical difference between men and women (though its often overstated to the point one would think humans are a highly sexually dimorphic species, while we are not) - that may have been the root cause for the advent of gender-based roles during the agricultural revolution. Supposedly, preagricultural societies show no evidence of status being determined or affected by gender.

Though, gender roles don't fully explain the establishment of patriarchal systems. Maybe in the same way 'fear' becomes 'hatred' under racism, 'expectations' become 'obligations' under sexism. It's possible, though just a guess.

Between racism and sexism, I'm far less confident in understanding the origins of the latter.

---

One thing I'm suddenly curious about: Does the lower levels of physical fitness and combat experience among modern people have any relation with the decrease in sexism seen globally?

We live in an age of relative abundance and relative peace. People don't hunt for their food like we did when we were evolving (technically we are still evolving, but its such a slow process as to be negligible) and though wars exist, violence is lower than it ever has been year-after-year.

I think of it like this: Sex is your base stat, and training is your multiplier. The difference between basic male and female physicality is unclear, but from a quick google it seems to be between 30%-75% if such a thing can really be quantified with a number.

In all honesty, that's not a huge difference. In the grand scheme of the animal kingdom, it's negligible (a human with any amount of training isn't going to beat a bear in a fight. Sorry to my fellow men, I know we thought we had this one). Though for human-on-human it certainly is noticeable.

Training is much more a factor in determining who can oppress who, physically. I'm counting physical fitness as part of training.

As an example, an average woman would have a far better chance to take down an average man than they would a far above average woman with excellent strength and skills.

There is a limit to how much a human being can train, obviously, but the limit is much lower than our natural discrepancies.

Top tier athletes have both natural gifts and intensive training.

Also, even if you're inferior to somebody, that doesn't mean you will lose every time. An example is that a small woman might have difficulty defeating a big guy, but if she gets a lucky punch in the throat, she might be able to KO him.
This message was last edited by the GM at 05:29, Yesterday.

Current thread reply priorities:

1. Abarion (as GM, when needed)
2. Leander in Denaster
3. Ahirom in Tybe
4. Abarion (as Sigismund)

I'll try and get a response in to Leander and Ahirom today.

BTW, @Ahirom you responded rather quickly. Are you back from your vacation? If so, welcome back! I'm glad to have you here full time haha :-)

I am back indeed!

History
I think my thesis is pretty simple. Any view of history without recognising the impact of great people is flawed. A handful of people in history (shall we say less than 20) have made a huge and massive difference that had absolutely nothing to do with the tech of the time, or the mores and customs.

What's important is how these people changed radically how we treat other people, interact with neighbours, the definition of right and wrong, what is allowed to be done, what is illegal, how we trade with other people, how food and wealth are to be distributed. Most of the important things in life really.

Any view of east asia that removes Emperor Qin is massively and hugely different. The impact he had on the world over 2000 years ago and still today is about him. Not about the means of production, or any thing in his cultures. They are still terrified of him today: they don't dare mess with his grave in case his angry ghost comes back to do bad things to them.

That goes even more so for Mohammed. I mean ... wow ... Replace Mohammed with a different goatherd and the entire history of maybe half the planet changes enormously. His talents were not fed or supported by the society he was in. He was a goat herd. He forged the society that then conquered perhaps 1/4 of the planet. He changes perhaps the most important part of history: how people interact with each other and resolve conflict.

Tamujin... replace him with (say) his sons, and ... well ... that part of the world is massively different. Most importantly he changes the culture and technology of that entire part of the world

Julius Caesear. Eleanor of Acquitaine. Charlemagne. Napoleon. They all dramatically change these most important things 'how we interact with each other'. All of them hugely changed the society they were in, rather than reflecting it.


I don't think this is the view of the main stream scientific community. The main stream view, as I understand it, is that both are very important. I think as well we need to be thinking about power law distributions when it comes to the type of people we are talking to. Power law distributions are not something that most people understand intuitively


There is a lot of truth in this. Different cultures have different norms of behavior. The viking for example are a good example of a culture that venerated things that we would regard as evil.

But actually there is another thing that I'd like to introduce you to. We know that between 1 and 3% of people are sociapaths. They are born with tendancy to betrayal, backstabing and what most people would regard as evil. I give you this as an interesting example https://faunalytics.org/intent...wildlife-collisions/ .  There are a number of interesting studies on this. A good one to read is On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society. This is particularly interesting on the discussion around sociapaths. I do really strongly recommend it. It and some of the follow on books are fascinating for anyone interested in history


I should say my husband is a biologist and this is a topic we are both interested in. I got his help with this. It turns out that genes heavily influence your brain chemistry. I'm giving these examples just so that you can see I'm not 'appealing to expert'.

• Genes can determine the levels of neurotransmitters such as serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine, which are critical for mood regulation, cognition, and overall brain function. For example, variations in the gene for the enzyme tryptophan hydroxylas can affect serotonin synthesis.
• Genes encode for receptors that neurotransmitters bind to. Variations in these genes can alter receptor sensitivity and function.
• Polymorphisms in the DRD2 gene, which codes for dopamine receptors, can influence dopamine signaling and have been linked to conditions like schizophrenia and addiction.
• Genes influence the production of enzymes that break down neurotransmitters, such as monoamine oxidase (MAO).
• Variations in the MAO gene can affect the breakdown of neurotransmitters like serotonin and dopamine, impacting mood and behavior.
• Genes play a role in synaptic plasticity, which is the ability of synapses to strengthen or weaken over time. This is crucial for learning and memory.
• Genes like BDNF (brain-derived neurotrophic factor) are involved in neuroplasticity and can affect how the brain adapts to new experiences.
• I stopped the list at this point. It goes on a lot longer

Our genes dramatically impact not just our brain chemistry but more importantly brain structure and the way neurons form and interact which is our best guess as to what it means to be clever or to have personality.

Sexuality and physicality
A complex topic. Most societies' norms usally say 'you need protection' and that protection almost always comes in the form of control.

I think it's worth looking at history. Most cultures I am aware of that we have written records of (real history not proto-history) have treated women as property until Mohammed came along. It took until about 1920 (give or take 20 years... although in switzerland it was 1971) for our western civilisation to catch up to that level of women's rights. The main exceptions to that 'women are property' are interesting: Egypt (after you had had three children ... it might be three sons I can't remember ... a woman could own property and sign contracts in her own right) Sparta (but not the other city states) Vikings (women weren't quite property... they had a few rights). There might be others... but most I can think of are pre history or proto history.


What you said

And... I did the posting at the same time as the GM. Sorry I just missed it.  It's late here so will do something tomorrow to repond

That's all pretty reasonable. It's true that some figures have drastically altered the world due to their teachings/actions. I just tend to avoid glorifying people as idols. I might be reacting too sensitively, and overextending that principle. It's not my intent to ignore their doings.

I don't know why I thought genes didn't affect brain chemistry, maybe I meant something else but couldn't find the words. But yeah, they obviously do. Sorry about that.

--

Honestly, the reason I'm so edgy with that topic of 'great men' is because I've seen a lot of people (not you, and I don't think this is your intention or something you believe) make [terrible] arguments that certain 'kinds' of people are more naturally inclined to violent behavior. You can take a wild guess what the people who claim those things think about racial equality, particularly desegregation.

Power distributions are a bit beyond my ability to do maths. From what I can tell, it seems like the Pareto Principle is a kind of power law distribution? I've seen the Pareto Principle used to describe economic realities, but I've also seen it used to somehow justify income inequality - not sure if that's something it's meant to do or if it's just been co-opted.

--

Certainly, natural sociopathy is one of the most frightening topics to me. As someone on the spectrum, one of my neurological differences is that I have a dampened sense of empathy, though it's still present. It's understandable to me that someone could have no empathy whatsoever, but the consequences that would have on civil society is truly massive if enough people began to think and live like that.

I wonder if this tendency for antisocial behavior could be explained by game theory. Surely, evolution has had time to weed out this kind of behavior, and hasn't done so because somehow this pattern (in small dosages at least) somehow makes organisms more fit for survival and reproduction.

If I remember game theory correctly, individuals can benefit greatly from leaning heavily into 'competition' strategies over 'cooperation' ones. But on a whole, groups suffer if many of their members take that approach. Thus, in general, it's better to cooperate than compete, even if competition individually outclasses cooperation.

Whatever it is, it's probably not a fluke if these tendencies are not a recent emergence. If they are, then maybe it's just a passing mutation (not from our perspective, but on a larger time scale)

--

No worries, it's partially my fault.

LOL, I keep trying to find good times to respond - I don't want to overly interrupt the flow of your threes' conversation. The Abarion thread is so active at the moment that it's difficult to spend the time it takes me to write a longer post and not end up interrupting something.

A power distribution is critical to understand if you want to understand people and society I think. I know you like thinking about history so this really helps understand things.

There are two main distributions (OK other people might disagree) power law and normal. A normal distribution is 'peoples height and weight' or 'how far can you throw a ball'. Pretty much everyone is similar. Maybe you can throw a ball twice as far as me. Maybe you are a foot taller than me (it's unlikely you are smaller than me because you are male and I'm quite small). Unlikely to be a mile taller than me or be able to throw the ball a hundred miles further than I can.

A power law is 'how much money do you earn, how many people know your name, how much impact did you have on history'. In the 'how much money do you earn' consider your salary to a peasant in bangalore and to Bill Gates. Note that basically if you have ten people randomly selected from the world one of them will probably have roughly ten times the salary of the others. Bill Gates salary is so high compared to almost everyone else in the same way that Emperor Qin's impact on the world is compared to yours or mine. Consider how many people know your name compared to how many people know Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos's or King Charles, or Elton John's. It's not 'twice as many' it's 'a million times more (or even more)'.

There are many power laws distributions in history. And if you are interested it's good to get that model in your head. Understanding it helps you understand a lot of things that are hard to understand without it (like peace... there is almost always a powerlaw at play here: who is the one person or situation who is keeping the society peaceful at that time, and how much influence do they have)


I don't see the link actually. The great men theory says that there are perhaps 20 people in history that had an enormous impact. That's what you would expect with a power law distribution. And even within those twenty a couple had even more than the other. Again that's what the power law would suggest. Some of those people were violent. Eleanor of Acquitaine who had a huge impact on woman's rights and the way we treat each other (even now) wasn't particularly violent. Mohammed was the opposite of violent, although many of followers got carried away (also today).

I share your conern about the 'linking to race'. I would say it is absolutely that case that some people are more prone to violence. About 3% in fact. As far as I know no studies have been done as to race for that, but plenty of studies have shown the 'between 1 and 3% of sociapaths'. There are behavioural studies related to this but most of those show that the behavior is dominated by the distance from the equator (because of seasons: if you have seasons resources and resource storage and planning are more important). <wind up those people on>That means I think that 'white caucasians' are probably the most prone to this (I'm one by the way so this isn't finger pointing), which seems to match the historical accounts. (Crusades, Vikings, 100 years war, the Race for Africa... I could give a hundred more examples).<wind up off>

Idols
Elanor of Acquitaine and Mohammed (the man not the religion) are 'idols' of mine. The rest... woo... Evil murdering bastards most of them. They did a lot of good, but they brutalised their way across the world smashing, raping and pillaging mostly. Not really idols :) Recognising their impact doesn't require me to like them or respect their morals. Genghis Khan might have created a world in which a virgin with gold can cross it from end to the other in safety, but he did it at quite a cost.

Alr, very excited to do my next post but before I do so what definition of peace bond are we using? There’s a couple and I don’t want to get things mixed up.

It could mean different things one culture to another, so part of this could be a misunderstanding of the term. Kavian means tying the hilt to the scabbard. It prevents the hasty utilization of the weapon, say in a fit of anger. It would require deliberate attention to remove the tie and release the blade, and time.

Got it thank you! [then Asherah probably wouldn’t know the meaning either lol]

I think anyone who does any degree of long distance travel will be familiar with the practice.

Sorry if it’s rough, I wrote it entirely on my phone which can be quite the pain.

@Li Hua
Interesting stuff. I understand a lot better, now.

@Kavian/Asherah
Yeah I also had trouble finding what peacebonding meant. I knew it had to do something with weaponry, but my first Google result led to some Canadian legal term. I figured that wasn't the right thing so I kept looking. I ended up on a section of Wikipedia about sci-fi conventions and near the bottom of the page there was some information about peacebonding.

It sounds like a wild ride but it actually took less than two minutes. Browsing the internet is a wild ride. pretty sure it would instantly kill a Victorian child ROFL

It can indeed.

@Interesting stuff
Yes indeed. History is fun. Maths is fun. And when they come together it's even better.

@Peacebonding
 I did recognise it :) The term I am familiar with is peace knotting but they are (I think) the same concept

The idea is that law enforcement (when you enter a controlled area) uses a weak knot that you can break easily but is obvious. Kind of like the original Gordion knot. The Gordion knot was a means of knowing if someone had broken into your room. The peaceknot/bond is a way of knowing if you have drawn your weapon. When you leave the controlled area, they check the knot. If it's broken you have explaining to do

As far as I know it's used at cosplays and SCA and similar, but there are no records of it being used anywhere in western history, and only some sparse evidence for it being used in the samurai era

That said I use it in my fantasy games: it's a good idea

Nice, I like that a lot and will definitely include it in the setting.
The fact that it's easily breakable means it can't be used to set traps, so it would be a lot less abusable.

Ah the Gordion knot. I don't recognize the name, but I infer that it's similar to putting a slip of paper in your doorframe (if it's on the ground when you return, someone entered)?

Reply incoming to Abarion thread

Real quick, let me know if this is all acceptable (working on the Timeline in the Wiki):

(Sigismund will be 24)
Asherah: 17 (probably 18 soon)
Zhao Li Hua: 22 (probably 23 soon)
Kavian Aminar: 15 (Ruhan is 14, so Kavian should be at most 19)

I have a few sources for peace bonding.

Edo period Japan(1603-1868):

Stephen Turnbull, Samurai: The World of the Warrior (Osprey Publishing, 2003). This book provides a detailed account of the practice of peace bonding among samurai in Japan.

In Western history, a similar practice was observed in medieval European cities, where weapons were often peace-bonded as a security measure during fairs, markets, and public gatherings. For instance, in some medieval European cities, visitors were required to tie their weapons to their belts or scabbards to prevent them from being drawn easily, thus maintaining public order and safety.

A specific example from Western history includes the medieval city of Lübeck in Northern Germany, where the city's laws mandated that "swords, knives, and other weapons must be secured to prevent sudden violence." This practice was common in other Hanseatic League cities as well, aimed at preserving the peace in bustling trade hubs.

The Lübeck law references can be found in historical legal texts from the city archives, documenting the regulations imposed on visitors and citizens to ensure public safety.

For a scholarly discussion on the peace-bonding practice in medieval Europe, see:

Robert Bartlett, The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization, and Cultural Change 950-1350 (Princeton University Press, 1994). This book explores various aspects of social and legal norms in medieval European cities, including measures to control violence.

https://youtu.be/9rp3nve9CJk

Just on a casual search, weapons are generally highly restricted in cities. Swords being considered a weapon of war and a target for law enforcement in particular. Not an all inclusive list of sources here with plenty of room for debate on individual cultures and other exceptions. I can see a case for nobility being able to carry freely, but only for local nobility charged with such duties as public order and enforcement, certainly not for foreign nobles who aren't a part of a diplomatic envoy. Probably rare to witness openly carry even still. I think its enough evidence not to dismiss the dangers dedicated weapons pose and the controls in place in "most" societies.

My viewpoint on weapons control in history and RPG's in particular is colored strongly by my favorite system, GURPS.



They've done an extensive amount of research on the subject and have a detailed system on how to model the issue of controlled substances and weapons in different societies and time periods. The quote is where I got the assault rifle comparison. I ran into it by chance and forgot I got it from here lol.

Conspicuous sure, but threatening? If anything, a person wearing plate armor is LESS threatening, because their mobility is restricted.

I'm not familiar with GURPS (I've been a bit interested in learning more lately and I've heard its excellent) but regardless of what GURPS has to say, I'm doing my best to avoid basing this world off TTRPGs. For example, I really like D&D, but it's designed for 'gameplay' not 'worldbuilding'. Plenty of fans of the game point out that some things just don't make sense if you think about them too much.

I'm sure GURPS is the same, at least to some extent. Sacrifices always have to be made for TTRPG systems, because you can't model reality while maintaining playability (a good example of not recognizing this is FATAL, which on top of being horribly designed and purposely offensive, is also unbearable to actually play)

This game is freeform, so it can avoid those problems because it's more about telling a story (though the power systems lean towards hard fantasy, as that's my preference, but mainly because it makes it easier to ensure players know what is and is not possible for their characters)

All of that is tangential though, because the idea doesn't actually rely on the GURPS rules.

This seems to be getting some discussion, so this is what I'm currently thinking: It all depends on the region

ex. If the region is very violent, peacebonding would be more of a necessity
ex. If the region has a warlike culture, carrying a weapon may be considered a personal right, even amongst commoners.

~

I agree with your distinction between landed and foreign nobles. However, there are still a number of reasons Li Hua would be permitted to carry a sword.

Firstly, she's very conspicuous, so it's doubtful whether she could commit a crime and escape easily. Getting away with crime is easier than it is in modernity, but it would be harder for her than it would be for the average person.

Secondly, Abarion is actually rather sensitive to other cultures. It's a trade city after all. They may presume it's part of her culture to carry a ceremonial weapon. She also has valuable items on her, so merchants whouldn't want to offend her and risk losing her business.

Thirdly, she is clearly in possession of some wealth. If someone were to try and steal from her, she must be able to defend her self and property.

Fourthly, her weapon is copper. That doesn't mean it can't kill, but that it's inferior to the bronze weaponry used locally. Whether guards are actually armed with swords rather than clubs or something is a changing variable depending on where you are in the kingdom.

Fifthly, it's for the same two reasons I let my adventuring parties carry their equipment - 1. it's more convenient and 2. there's always a bigger fish. If Li Hua went on a rampage for whatever reason, the city has enough resources to take her down.

Li Hua would have entered the city properly, and so she is known by the city administration. She's only been here a short time, maybe just one or two days - so she will likely be contacted soon to sort out the terms of her visit.

There are even more reasons to carry a weapon, but they don't apply to Li Hua. For nobles, they would also have to keep in mind that:

6. Should they misbehave, they have a lot to lose. It's only worth drawing a weapon if its an emergency. Using it to intimidate would mean social or legal punishment.

7. It's a display of status to carry a good weapon. Especially among more military-oriented families. It would be discorteous to make a comment about it, let alone to deny their right to carry one.

---

Now some reasons why peacebonding or disarmament could be preferrable:

1. Reduces risk of violence. For a number of reasons already stated, it's exceedingly rare for a noble with a weapon to use it. For commoners, they would have much more reason and chance of using it. Thus, they are not allowed to carry weapons. The guards would be suspicious and take you in (there's no human rights in the ancient age, so they can arrest you if they can justify it to their superiors later)

2. More peaceful atmosphere. This would be relevant if the atmosphere was one of conflict, but its not in Abarion. It's a trade city, mostly peaceful. The powers at be have a vested interest in ensuring that trade flows smoothly. Violence would be punished much more harshly than it would be in other settlements.

---

As for the interpersonal arguments between Kavian and Li Hua, it seems that it could be solved simply by agreeing to meet at a later date?

On the possibility of combat,
here's a few things to keep in mind:

1. Li Hua with sword could kill Kavian and Asherah with little effort. If they split up to run away, she could probably only kill one.

2. Li Hua without a sword still has enough training be able to overcome the mere physical difference between her and Kavian. A grapple would be the worst case scenario for her, but it would end up as a wrestling match on the floor, rather than a one-sided chokehold. Also, despite her small stature, she would have a deceptive amount of arm strength since some force is required to wield even a lighter sword.

3. If the two attacked her together, while she was unarmed, it would be a brutal fight.

4. Li Hua without a sword versus Kavian's party members (excluding himself) would come down to the terrain. If it's the cave, she gets overwhelmed and dogpiled. If it's open, she could try and make it a series of individual battles, or just decide to escape.

5. Li Hua with a sword versus Kavian's party members (excluding himself) would also come down to the terrain, but with more bloodshed. If it's the cave, she likely maims or kills a number of them before getting disarmed and dogpiled. If it's open, she could win or lose depending on how everything plays out.

If any of you think any of this is inaccurate, let me know. It's just my estimation of what might happen in certain situations. The cave in this situation counts as both cramped terrain (bad for sword wielding and for kiting) and terrain that is exclusively familiar to one side.

Also, a couple of Kavian's party wouldn't be actual fighting forces. The young ones who haven't hit puberty yet would at most serve as distractions, they wouldn't be able to grapple Li Hua properly. They would be at a major physical disadvantage, as well.

---

This isn't me advocating for combat. Rather, hopefully you can see that most of these situations end with mutual damage. Whether your characters know this much or think this way is up to you. To me, Li Hua seems a bit underconfident when disarmed, but a bit overconfident when armed.

Kavian is correct that he doesn't believe he represents a threat, but he might not have the experience to recognize that with numbers and terrain, he poses an equal threat to Li Hua.

---

Anyway, meeting in neutral ground would be good, but it seems you're all getting dragged along with Sigismund (the old man is Alvisdan if you remember that NPC, though none of you have learned his name yet) - technically this could be considered a kind of neutral ground.

Actually, funnily enough, Alvisdan appearing was planned before I realized where this convo on safety and threat was going. In a sense, this is a good solution, because Alvisdan could and would stop any violence that breaks out. I won't say any more, you all might or might not get a chance to see him display his strength.