Mto

Discussions about constructed worlds, cultures and any topics related to constructed societies.
Keenir
runic
runic
Posts: 2502
Joined: Tue 22 May 2012, 02:05

Re: Mto

Post by Keenir » Fri 02 Feb 2018, 01:15

Axiem wrote:
Thu 01 Feb 2018, 15:33
But, I'm also potentially re-thinking a lot of how I'm doing language things, especially around Situnyan. I keep seeming to want to fall into CV-repetitious languages for my syllables, and I need to do better than that.
whats wrong with CV?
I also may have a problem with focus.
just take your time.
Last night, I once again was haunted by the question of "how does art exist?" and dealing with the core magic mechanic, so, I'm running about in circles again :/
art exists because art exists. if it didn't, we'd not be asking "what if art existed"...i'm pretty sure. :)
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799
Axiem
sinic
sinic
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat 10 Sep 2016, 05:56

Re: Mto

Post by Axiem » Fri 02 Feb 2018, 02:49

Keenir wrote:
Fri 02 Feb 2018, 01:15
whats wrong with CV?
There's nothing wrong with it at all! It's just that when all of my languages seem to be composed of just CV, and all the variety is in the C's and the V's, I don't think there's actually a lot of variety.

Last night, I once again was haunted by the question of "how does art exist?" and dealing with the core magic mechanic, so, I'm running about in circles again :/
art exists because art exists. if it didn't, we'd not be asking "what if art existed"...i'm pretty sure. :)
Oh, I understand the "why"! It's the "how" that's more of an issue. Like, okay, if someone makes a sculpture in the real world and it's gorgeous and beautiful, it can still be smashed with a hammer. To prevent this from happening, we (attempt to) prevent people from bringing hammers near sculptures.

But if magic allows for remote manipulation of matter, as I'm wont to do, then what prevents essentially from some crazy high-powered magic-user from walking into the art museum and just destroying everything remotely?

Or, what prevents someone from just walking into a building and using a bit of magic to make a structural support pillar collapse, and the whole building on top of it?

I'm essentially running into the "how can this sort of power be limited?" problem.
Conworld: Mto
:con: : Kuvian
Keenir
runic
runic
Posts: 2502
Joined: Tue 22 May 2012, 02:05

Re: Mto

Post by Keenir » Fri 02 Feb 2018, 04:25

Axiem wrote:
Fri 02 Feb 2018, 02:49
Keenir wrote:
Fri 02 Feb 2018, 01:15
whats wrong with CV?
There's nothing wrong with it at all! It's just that when all of my languages seem to be composed of just CV, and all the variety is in the C's and the V's, I don't think there's actually a lot of variety.
I would wager that there is a great - *re-reads your statement again* Ahh.

but by that argument, there is no variety in any natlang or conlang, because there are all Cs and Vs...clicks and such excepted, naturally.

so...maybe look at different groups of natlangs, and see how else CV can be used? (or take your CV conlang, and evolve it into a daughterlang?)

Last night, I once again was haunted by the question of "how does art exist?" and dealing with the core magic mechanic, so, I'm running about in circles again :/
art exists because art exists. if it didn't, we'd not be asking "what if art existed"...i'm pretty sure. :)
Oh, I understand the "why"! It's the "how" that's more of an issue. Like, okay, if someone makes a sculpture in the real world and it's gorgeous and beautiful, it can still be smashed with a hammer. To prevent this from happening, we (attempt to) prevent people from bringing hammers near sculptures.

But if magic allows for remote manipulation of matter, as I'm wont to do, then what prevents essentially from some crazy high-powered magic-user from walking into the art museum and just destroying everything remotely?
well, if such remote manipulation is possible, would there be a tradition of making the minitures (painting, model, etc) with a flaw or three, however small or subtle, so whatever is done to them isn't done to the full-scale one? or good painters use cubism or surrealism or something else that distorts the image so there's no damage to the larger one.

(though, if I build a scale model, could that construct the full-scale one as well?)
Or, what prevents someone from just walking into a building and using a bit of magic to make a structural support pillar collapse, and the whole building on top of it?
magic-proof the building? (either with magical shields, something that negates magic, or...?)

maybe the Mto gods do something to buildings that trumps human magic?
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799
Axiem
sinic
sinic
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat 10 Sep 2016, 05:56

Re: Mto

Post by Axiem » Fri 02 Feb 2018, 04:39

Keenir wrote:
Fri 02 Feb 2018, 04:25
but by that argument, there is no variety in any natlang or conlang, because there are all Cs and Vs...clicks and such excepted, naturally.
Right, but a lot of languages are more than just CV repeated. Even Japanese allows for the occasional <n> :D But I need to also build a language or two that has phonotactics more along the lines of the consonant-heavier languages like German or English.

As in, it's that I gravitate towards CVCVCV sorts of constructions, mostly because they're easy, and need to start having more CVC-style syllables.

But conlanging isn't also my primary thing here.

well, if such remote manipulation is possible, would there be a tradition of making the minitures (painting, model, etc) with a flaw or three, however small or subtle, so whatever is done to them isn't done to the full-scale one? or good painters use cubism or surrealism or something else that distorts the image so there's no damage to the larger one.
That sort of distortion wouldn't stop someone from walking into the Louvre and setting the Mona Lisa on fire with their mind. That's more the sort of thing I'm talking about.
Or, what prevents someone from just walking into a building and using a bit of magic to make a structural support pillar collapse, and the whole building on top of it?
magic-proof the building? (either with magical shields, something that negates magic, or...?)
It's the nature of that magic-proofing that I'm not really sure of, is the thing. Magic isn't a thing that can be negated, since it's driven by the nature of reality itself. So if there's etherial weight of some sort that prevents etherial tampering—then an even more powerful magic-user can just apply more etherial force and do the thing anyway.

I mean, I think the etherial mass idea is where I'm going to end up, it just gets weird for things like paintings—and then fire in general.
Conworld: Mto
:con: : Kuvian
Keenir
runic
runic
Posts: 2502
Joined: Tue 22 May 2012, 02:05

Re: Mto

Post by Keenir » Fri 02 Feb 2018, 10:23

well, if such remote manipulation is possible, would there be a tradition of making the minitures (painting, model, etc) with a flaw or three, however small or subtle, so whatever is done to them isn't done to the full-scale one? or good painters use cubism or surrealism or something else that distorts the image so there's no damage to the larger one.
That sort of distortion wouldn't stop someone from walking into the Louvre and setting the Mona Lisa on fire with their mind. That's more the sort of thing I'm talking about.[/quote]

stop what you can, and do your best to learn from when it happens. (sometimes criminals' actions show us how to improve things, and sometimes criminals are the ones who build the next generation of security)

maybe jot down a page or two of someone making a memo or a business talk about how the Mona Lisa was burnt to a crisp, and what we learned from the disaster?
It's the nature of that magic-proofing that I'm not really sure of, is the thing. Magic isn't a thing that can be negated, since it's driven by the nature of reality itself. So if there's etherial weight of some sort that prevents etherial tampering—then an even more powerful magic-user can just apply more etherial force and do the thing anyway
at the risk of quoting dead jedi, there's always a bigger fish...no matter what we put in place, somebody will find a way around or through it.
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799
User avatar
alynnidalar
roman
roman
Posts: 1008
Joined: Sun 17 Aug 2014, 02:22
Location: Michigan, USA

Re: Mto

Post by alynnidalar » Fri 02 Feb 2018, 16:00

I suppose such a world might simply not develop long-term, long-lasting art (or any other thing), if they can be so easily destroyed. They'd likely be more about art through experiences (e.g. theater or the experience of watching a sculptor create a sculpture) than the finished product.
Axiem
sinic
sinic
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat 10 Sep 2016, 05:56

Re: Mto

Post by Axiem » Fri 02 Feb 2018, 16:56

That makes a lot of sense, and it works with the fact that I already knew that theatre and sports were important to the world.

I've also been contemplating things like ice sculptures and sandcastles. For instance, in St Louis we recently had an ice sculpture festival, and the sculptures just sat on the sidewalk where people could walk by and touch them and such. No one came by with a hammer to shatter them; they simply melted. So I think it's fair that people on the whole aren't going to destroy art just to be crazy art-destroyers; it's just about managing the people who don't care about such norms.

I still have concerns about architecture, though. But I've been having thoughts regarding ethereal mass that might ameliorate that problem. That is, in the same way that it's extremely difficult to push a giant stone pillar, so it would be extremely difficult to push it ethereally—though that has implications in how much more difficult things like mining would still be, and I was kind of hoping that "building tunnels for trains" wouldn't actually be quite so difficult as it is in our world.
Conworld: Mto
:con: : Kuvian
Axiem
sinic
sinic
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat 10 Sep 2016, 05:56

Re: Mto

Post by Axiem » Sat 03 Feb 2018, 22:45

I am once again running into the problem of my own indecision, and my tendency to keep re-thinking things over and over again.

In this case, it's about the deities again.

So, I ended up creating a list of 16 deities, in terms of domains—but didn't have names for most of them. And as I was thinking about names, another thing that's been bothering me (and I've kept ignoring despite its growing insistence) finally crept up: in what language are the deity names?

Like, okay, the deities aren't themselves human, so wouldn't have human speech for their monikers—though they could become human and have those names. But the names would have been revealed to humans centuries ago! Sure, the name for each deity in a given language could just be that deity's "actual" name as interpreted by local phonotactics, but then it starts getting awfully convenient that the deities strongly associated with particular nations happen to have names that translate really darn well into the local (the most egregious example of this is Kaltet, whose name conveniently is an -et (that is, masculine) noun in Kuvian; but also shows up in e.g. Ngurya).

Writing it out like this, it doesn't sound quite so bad, but something about it still bothers me a little.

But it also brings up that other thing that's been bothering me: some deities are very much associated with particular nations: Anadiel with Entleis, Kaltet with Kuvia, Korvanuq with Nairu, Valya with Situnya...and that seems counter to a full pantheon sort of expression. And, I keep bloating the pantheon as I think of more and more domains that I'd been missing in some way ("oh wait, who would be really interested in music?").

I'm starting to come back around to one of my older ideas, where it's much more explicitly deity-nation pairing (with the Tánsùl being an interesting case), with the deities more or less playing Civilization with the world. I'm even thinking of coming back to the "trying to capture the icons" idea. It means tearing away a lot of the specific focus on deities, but also makes their interactions with people a bit easier to grasp.

On the other hand, it's also a kind of dismal revelation for humans, to learn that they're just pawns in this game. Sure, it was dismal even when there was a soul-scoring system of some weird sort, but that was kept a little opaque to the people and there was a more clear reward system; play-for-keeps Civilization feels more cut-throat. (Or it could be scoring-system Civilization, but it really has been too long since I've played Civilization myself to really gauge that).

And of course, this sort of thing really undergirds a lot of culture and organization, and ultimately, narrative of my stories, so until I make decisions, I'm once again stymied in any attempt to write anything :/

I'm not sure if I'm asking for advice, wanting a solution, or just venting. Sometimes worldbuilding is just hard stuff.
Conworld: Mto
:con: : Kuvian
Keenir
runic
runic
Posts: 2502
Joined: Tue 22 May 2012, 02:05

Re: Mto

Post by Keenir » Sun 04 Feb 2018, 01:41

Axiem wrote:
Sat 03 Feb 2018, 22:45
So, I ended up creating a list of 16 deities, in terms of domains—but didn't have names for most of them. And as I was thinking about names, another thing that's been bothering me (and I've kept ignoring despite its growing insistence) finally crept up: in what language are the deity names?

Like, okay, the deities aren't themselves human, so wouldn't have human speech for their monikers—though they could become human and have those names. But the names would have been revealed to humans centuries ago! Sure, the name for each deity in a given language could just be that deity's "actual" name as interpreted by local phonotactics, but then it starts getting awfully convenient that the deities strongly associated with particular nations happen to have names that translate really darn well into the local (the most egregious example of this is Kaltet, whose name conveniently is an -et (that is, masculine) noun in Kuvian; but also shows up in e.g. Ngurya).

But it also brings up that other thing that's been bothering me: some deities are very much associated with particular nations: Anadiel with Entleis, Kaltet with Kuvia, Korvanuq with Nairu, Valya with Situnya...and that seems counter to a full pantheon sort of expression. And, I keep bloating the pantheon as I think of more and more domains that I'd been missing in some way ("oh wait, who would be really interested in music?").
well, my sympathies and commiserations to you.

though, everything you've just described, sounds pretty normal. I mean, sometimes a deity is at the head of a nation's or region's worship, yet is pretty much nonexistent in another nation or region (compare Baal in Roman Syria and Israel, vs Roman Britain)...and the jobs of gods don't always stay the same through space or time (before Osiris took over the state religion, Anubis and his daughter were pretty important, with daughter Raat keeping water clean; after Osiris, that job went elsewhere)

Though, just because one god's name ends with -et, doesn't mean that god has that name because of the worshipper's language having -et...the worshippers may think that's why the -et is there, because of their language (ie, Latin suffixes aren't why Jesus ends in -us)

does that help any?
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799
Axiem
sinic
sinic
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat 10 Sep 2016, 05:56

Re: Mto

Post by Axiem » Sun 04 Feb 2018, 01:56

Keenir wrote:
Sun 04 Feb 2018, 01:41
I mean, sometimes a deity is at the head of a nation's or region's worship, yet is pretty much nonexistent in another nation or region (compare Baal in Roman Syria and Israel, vs Roman Britain)...and the jobs of gods don't always stay the same through space or time (before Osiris took over the state religion, Anubis and his daughter were pretty important, with daughter Raat keeping water clean; after Osiris, that job went elsewhere)
A key difference: those deities did not actually exist. However, the deities of Mto explicitly do exist, and interact with people in the world, and are known.

Somewhere along the line, while I was reading up on polytheism, I saw something that pointed out that a culture's pantheon is a reflection of their worldview and such. For example, the Egyptian pantheon has a strong focus on life/death cycles, and their agricultural process was heavily indebted to the regular flooding of the Nile; likewise, the Roman pantheon is highly regimented with a lot of attention towards agriculture.

Mto, however, doesn't have a single consistent culture or worldview in that sense, but the deities themselves are the same everywhere. While I suppose I could borrow a little bit of that, and have how people consider a given deity be different in different places...that deity would still be the same deity, and prone to being like "uh, I'm always into sailing".
Latin suffixes aren't why Jesus ends in -us
Yes it is? (Well, okay, it's because converting the Hebrew Yeshua into Koine Greek turned it into Iesous, which when imported into Latin because Iesus, but same difference)
Conworld: Mto
:con: : Kuvian
Keenir
runic
runic
Posts: 2502
Joined: Tue 22 May 2012, 02:05

Re: Mto

Post by Keenir » Sun 04 Feb 2018, 02:24

Axiem wrote:
Sun 04 Feb 2018, 01:56
Keenir wrote:
Sun 04 Feb 2018, 01:41
I mean, sometimes a deity is at the head of a nation's or region's worship, yet is pretty much nonexistent in another nation or region (compare Baal in Roman Syria and Israel, vs Roman Britain)...and the jobs of gods don't always stay the same through space or time (before Osiris took over the state religion, Anubis and his daughter were pretty important, with daughter Raat keeping water clean; after Osiris, that job went elsewhere)
A key difference: those deities did not actually exist. However, the deities of Mto explicitly do exist, and interact with people in the world, and are known.
I'm giving examples - precedent, if you like. avenues to consider and reject.
Somewhere along the line, while I was reading up on polytheism, I saw something that pointed out that a culture's pantheon is a reflection of their worldview and such. For example, the Egyptian pantheon has a strong focus on life/death cycles, and their agricultural process was heavily indebted to the regular flooding of the Nile;
that sounds reasonable...except a number of their gods are geographically odd - like Tawaret, goddess of childbirth - a hippo, which is not found in Egypt (far up the Nile, yes, but not on the Egyptian side of the cataracts). or Sekhmet, war and warfare - a lion, which is found in the Atlas Mountains and below the Sahara. Its like finding your surfing god in Tibet.
Mto, however, doesn't have a single consistent culture or worldview in that sense, but the deities themselves are the same everywhere. While I suppose I could borrow a little bit of that, and have how people consider a given deity be different in different places..
sort of like the Romans saying that all foreign gods are actually Roman gods under different names, thus making name-combining easier...Baal-Jupiter, for a bad example.

maybe jot down a little story or narrative - a letter home (or something) from a traveler who does/doesn't hear of his home town's god when he goes to a far(ish)-off city. or from a city to a town. the jotting doesn't have to be kept in the canon of the Mto universe...its just something to help you test out ideas, says someone who himself admittedly has trouble sticking with that idea himself.
.that deity would still be the same deity, and prone to being like "uh, I'm always into sailing".
And in places not so friendly to sailing (unless they have interesting rivers up in the mountains - which, to be fair, some do)...wouldn't that aspect of the deity be downplayed?
Latin suffixes aren't why Jesus ends in -us
Yes it is? (Well, okay, it's because converting the Hebrew Yeshua into Koine Greek turned it into Iesous, which when imported into Latin because Iesus, but same difference)
so in other words, that word-ending is not a suffix proper, but an attempt to find a phonetic match. which was my point.

once, long long ago, possibly even before I found the CBB or ZBB, I and a friend made a joke about how Catallus (or some other Roman writer) must have been driven mad by having to constantly remember which suffix to put on a person's name and when. :)
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799
Axiem
sinic
sinic
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat 10 Sep 2016, 05:56

Re: Mto

Post by Axiem » Sun 04 Feb 2018, 05:57

Keenir wrote:
Sun 04 Feb 2018, 02:24
I'm giving examples - precedent, if you like. avenues to consider and reject.
Fair. It's just that whenever I look at historical polytheistic religions, I keep finding myself wondering how it would be fundamentally different if the gods were provably, tangibly real in them. (And also, what that would really mean from a cosmological standpoint with all the different pantheons...)

I'm generally dissatisfied with how various D&D settings handle it; something always feels a little off. Part of what appeals to me about having a polylatristic system (instead of the monolatristic one-deity-per-nation system) is that I wouldn't mind actually trying do D&D-esque polytheism in a way that I think is better.

I don't think either way would be super unique in fantasy literature; I'd bet you could find examples of either somewhere or the other. Either way, it'd have my twist on it.
so in other words, that word-ending is not a suffix proper, but an attempt to find a phonetic match. which was my point.
Ah, I see what you're saying. Yes, I guess that makes sense, although <kalt> feels like a really short name... :D

(That said, I'm dissatisfied with the Kuvian case system, so who knows...)



I'm also wary about an ever-expanding pantheon, as I keep finding new domains that needs a deity. It starts feeling weird for them to be playing a giant game over time with each other. Not that I'm up on the latest Civilization games to know what the number of players even can be anymore.
Conworld: Mto
:con: : Kuvian
Keenir
runic
runic
Posts: 2502
Joined: Tue 22 May 2012, 02:05

Re: Mto

Post by Keenir » Sun 04 Feb 2018, 06:13

Axiem wrote:
Sun 04 Feb 2018, 05:57
Keenir wrote:
Sun 04 Feb 2018, 02:24
I'm giving examples - precedent, if you like. avenues to consider and reject.
Fair.
no, I was unduly harsh and far too bitter and impolite (at best)...I did not word that at all well or even remotely gesturing towards well. I can only apologize to you. I am sorry.
It's just that whenever I look at historical polytheistic religions, I keep finding myself wondering how it would be fundamentally different if the gods were provably, tangibly real in them.
except that's just it: people who believe in gods and those who believe in God, they can and do argue that what they believe in is provably and tangibly real. (yes, there's the argument of "well wars would have gone differently if the gods had intervened"...which people believe did happen - even in the US Civil War, participants and congregations believed that God was playing favorites, and-or teaching a lesson.....
.......though, if Athena personally appeared on the battlefield and zapped all of the enemy army...would that be taken as her having a lack of trust in the fighting ability of her believers? (why bother having an army, if you feel your god(s) are going to show up and fight for you?)

but I understand what you mean. though, to be fair, monotheism and polytheism and pretty much every other belief system all possess stories of their deities interacting with them (Abraham's tent being visited by YHWH, Aten speaking to Akenaten, etc), and tales of those deities taking physical action (the Pillar of Smoke/Fire, carving waterfalls in Australia, etc)
I'm generally dissatisfied with how various D&D settings handle it; something always feels a little off. Part of what appeals to me about having a polylatristic system (instead of the monolatristic one-deity-per-nation system) is that I wouldn't mind actually trying do D&D-esque polytheism in a way that I think is better.
please do.
I don't think either way would be super unique in fantasy literature; I'd bet you could find examples of either somewhere or the other. Either way, it'd have my twist on it.
and it would be that twist - however subtle you chose to make it - that would make it memorable and widely read.
so in other words, that word-ending is not a suffix proper, but an attempt to find a phonetic match. which was my point.
Ah, I see what you're saying. Yes, I guess that makes sense, although <kalt> feels like a really short name... :D[/quote]

well, we have "G-D", so we win!
:D

(unless you invoke El...)
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799
Axiem
sinic
sinic
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat 10 Sep 2016, 05:56

Re: Mto

Post by Axiem » Sun 04 Feb 2018, 20:48

Keenir wrote:
Sun 04 Feb 2018, 06:13
except that's just it: people who believe in gods and those who believe in God, they can and do argue that what they believe in is provably and tangibly real.
Sure, and I get that. It's difficult to dissuade the True Believers of any given religion.

But we do these days generally accept that say, Jupiter the god does not exist and never did exist; that all the prayers and sacrifices of the Romans to him simply were upon the air, and had no actual effect. (It's a bit brazen to put it that way, and most people would probably balk a little at it, but that's the end result of believing Jupiter never actually existed). If you were to pray to Jupiter now, you'd probably be considered a little out there (Religio Romana revival—and the whole wicca/pagan religion(s) in general—notwithstanding). And even some Romans doubted the existence of the gods.

In Mto, that scenario isn't very likely. Korvanuq is Korvanuq, and prayers to him are heard (and possibly acted on), and that religion wouldn't fade because Korvanuq would always at a certain point show up and be like "hey y'all, I'm actually really a thing, so you should worship me or whatever". The methods and languages of that worship might change, but praying to Korvanuq isn't going to be weird in and of itself, because sure, of course you're praying to a deity. No one's going to try to argue that Korvanuq's not there (though "in vain" might be an argument), and there certainly aren't going to be those who actively doubt the existence of the deities. There are some who might choose not to bother with worship for whatever reason (I would call them alatristic), but no one would seriously claim that Korvanuq doesn't exist.

So to a certain extent, it's not necessarily about what a person believes at a point in time, it's how the perception of that belief is going to change over time relative to culture. In the real world, many of the deities people used to worship are now believed to not exist...while in Mto, that would just be unheard of.

In either case, even if someone from ancient Rome argues that Jupiter does in fact exist, and caused such-and-such miracle...in Mto, those sorts of miracles are probably more likely, because there actually is a deity there who does sometimes say "oh yeah, that's a super important follower of mine, so I'll make sure she doesn't actually die".

Also, instead of there just being stories of the big, flashy discussions (e.g. the pillar of smoke and fire) that happened to people a Long Time Ago, there are tons of people who are like "oh yeah, Korvanuq totally showed up as a whirlwind last week" or "spoke with Kaltet this morning and he told me you're cheating on your wife" or "Anadiel smote that guy who kept railing at her" or whatever. It's much more a regular, known occurrence for people to see what we'd consider miraculous or magical.
memorable and widely read.
I can only hope!



I'll probably organize my thoughts on here a little more firmly after the Superb Owl party we're having today. Or maybe I'll have made a decision by then!

(World building is hard)
Conworld: Mto
:con: : Kuvian
Axiem
sinic
sinic
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat 10 Sep 2016, 05:56

Re: Mto

Post by Axiem » Wed 07 Feb 2018, 00:38

Having thought about it more, I think a lot of it comes down to "What game are the gods playing?" Or rather, how is score tracked?

My original conception relied a lot on the Civilization model: each deity got a civilization, and it was an all-out war between civilizations to take over each other, using the effigy/icon as a method of elimination. This relies a lot on the idea of the "capture", and what that would mean—and what prevents a civilization from simply dumping the effigy in the bottom of the ocean or somewhere like that where it'd be nigh impossible to find and retrieve. Alternately, there could be a way to pinpoint location, but that would leave the Tánsùl in a lurch, since part of their schtick is the nomadic thing.

It also puts a bit of a limit on what sorts of deities I could realistically have; a Trickster sort probably wouldn't be interesting as a Civilization leader (except perhaps to try to troll everyone else).

It's possible to drop the effigy idea, and even the elimination idea, but that makes "keeping score" even more murky.


On the other hand, going for the patron/polylatristic model, the "score" is probably something along the lines of "number of devotees". It's a pretty simple metric, while part of what I was kind of wanting was for the rules/scoring of the game to be relatively opaque to the humans (and the reader); I do want the gods' agendas to be alien and mysterious sometimes. On the other hand, this sort of metric provides a pretty relatable idea of motivation: the deities do things because they think it will increase the number of devotees.

That does make the "the deity also chooses you" thing a little weaker, though it doesn't eliminate it entirely. It also invites questions about how I've constructed the afterlife, with wanting to make enough of them happy to vote you into heaven (if "number of people who are devoted to you and make it into heaven" is the score, why wouldn't every deity just vote down every other deity's followers?). if the game's scoring is more complicated, that could also solve this problem, though it makes motivations harder to discern.

I do still have the "what language are the names from?" problem, especially when it comes to fun and interesting consonant clusters or diphthongs.

But in this model, the churches of the deities are important, and actually drive a lot of the politics; in some cases, the secular world would cozy up more with a particular church (such as Kuvia with Kaltet), but in other places might just try to run things and let the deities' game play out on its own (I suspect this is true about Nairu and Situnya).

On the other hand, it does seem to hamper some of the deities, such as the Trickster Goddess. In much the same way that people would rather worship Thor than Loki, why would people devote to Trickster Goddess than say, Valya? Trickster would have a much harder time competing (though again, if the scoring is more opaque than simply "who gets the most followers", this might be ameliorated).



My inclination at the moment is leaning towards the polylatristic model in some fashion. I think, ultimately, having a plethora of gods produces a more interesting world to put narratives in. It'd be finding that good balance of how the deities' game works relative to the world that's necessary there.

I am still ruminating on it.


Though I do have a list, more or less, of sixteen deities, even if I don't have names for half of them (right, names are hard, especially if they're in languages I haven't even figured out phonotactics for! And, what language are they all in, again? Translation is hard.). There's a part of me that's tempted to split them out into the sixteen possible MBTI types—and I'm amusing myself with this idea.

But that's driven by the thing that ultimately, if I go the polylatristic route, I'd much rather not have the deeply-cut domains that they "rule over", but rather have basically a set of more distinct personalities or characters, which drives their strategy for the game, along with the sorts of behaviors they encourage/discourage. It's just easy to flatten that out into "domains" and lose a lot of interesting flavor to the world.
Conworld: Mto
:con: : Kuvian
Keenir
runic
runic
Posts: 2502
Joined: Tue 22 May 2012, 02:05

Re: Mto

Post by Keenir » Wed 07 Feb 2018, 01:31

Axiem wrote:
Wed 07 Feb 2018, 00:38
On the other hand, it does seem to hamper some of the deities, such as the Trickster Goddess. In much the same way that people would rather worship Thor than Loki, why would people devote to Trickster Goddess than say, Valya? Trickster would have a much harder time competing (though again, if the scoring is more opaque than simply "who gets the most followers", this might be ameliorated).
err, not entirely. remember that whats-his-name the monk who copied down most of the stories, was trying to get Loki to be Satan (or an analogue)...much like Budge tried to get Setukh to be centuries later.

'The peasants were immensely relieved to find that their enemy was slain, and ever after they considered Loki the mightiest of all the heavenly council, for he had delivered them effectually from their foe, while the other gods had lent only temporary aid.'
--from the tale 'Skrymsli and the Peasant's Child'
in the book Myths of the Norsemen by Helene A. Guerber

And, what language are they all in, again?
well, maybe they aren't in a language? (except the personal private language of that particular god)
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799
Axiem
sinic
sinic
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat 10 Sep 2016, 05:56

Re: Mto

Post by Axiem » Wed 07 Feb 2018, 02:20

Keenir wrote:
Wed 07 Feb 2018, 01:31
Loki stuff
Good to know! So much for my knowledge of Norse mythology! (I admit, I've immersed myself more in Greek/Roman than any other)
And, what language are they all in, again?
well, maybe they aren't in a language? (except the personal private language of that particular god)
I mean in terms of phonotactics. Like, in the gazetteer, I'll probably have a page per deity, and I need some name for them.

In terms of their self-identification in whatever language they had prior to Mto's creation, I just kind of shrug. It's not human, and not worth really thinking about.

But at the point they started interacting with humans, they needed some collection of sounds to start identifying themselves as. And I think it's probably fair that the actual phonology of their names hasn't changed—just the phonotactics that interpret it (which has an impact on orthography). This is the problem I referred to earlier: what phonotactics are the names in?

(For a more concrete example: I'm using <Anadiel> for the goddess of Science and Women, though when brought into Situnyan phonotactics and orthography, it turns into <Anadyel>, because the diphthong represented by Entleisian <ie> doesn't exist in Situnyan, but they're content with palatalizing the /d/ represented by <d>. On the site, I'm sticking with Entleisian orthography, but I also have some grasp on Entleisian phonotactics (even if I can't explicitly articulate them); when it comes to other languages, I don't necessarily have that. But then, the question is raised: what is the actual pronunciation of the name of that Goddess? How does she herself pronounce it when not bound by language phonotactics? Or does she actually have that independent of a language? If it's not independent of a language, then I have to somehow figure out phonotactics for languages and then fit deity names into them, which is...tricky to try to get right.)

Mind, an option is to shrug on it, and allow for the names to have changed over time, which is why they tend to be in Situnyan phonotactics—because Situnyan is the lingua franca, thank you Valya—and so even their identity is somewhat mutable over time. That just feels a little odd.

And then, these names would have been granted hundreds (thousands?) of years ago, and languages change a lot in that length of time...so how does that play in, I wonder?

As noted, this is complicated, and part of what was getting me wanting to drop polylatrism earlier; in a deity-per-nation model, it's pretty clear that the deity's name is in the (dominant) language of the nation, and that's a bit easier to manage.
Conworld: Mto
:con: : Kuvian
Keenir
runic
runic
Posts: 2502
Joined: Tue 22 May 2012, 02:05

Re: Mto

Post by Keenir » Wed 07 Feb 2018, 04:32

I'm sorry, but I have more questions.
(I'm enjoying these discussions, though I'm afraid I may not be helping you steer closer to an ultimate answer)
Axiem wrote:
Wed 07 Feb 2018, 02:20
Keenir wrote:
Wed 07 Feb 2018, 01:31
Loki stuff
Good to know! So much for my knowledge of Norse mythology! (I admit, I've immersed myself more in Greek/Roman than any other)
happens to us all...some of them were a bit startling at first (like the one where Baldur gets Odin& armies to help him fight blind Hod - and they still lose)

though even a different translation of the familiar Norse myths can be shocking.
And, what language are they all in, again?
well, maybe they aren't in a language? (except the personal private language of that particular god)
In terms of their self-identification in whatever language they had prior to Mto's creation, I just kind of shrug. It's not human, and not worth really thinking about.

But at the point they started interacting with humans, they needed some collection of sounds to start identifying themselves as. [/quote]

do they care? if the point of the sound-name is so humans have something to call them, that's different from how they self-identify...isn't it?
And then, these names would have been granted hundreds (thousands?) of years ago, and languages change a lot in that length of time...so how does that play in, I wonder?
well, the deity is probably the only one left from that long ago...so as far as the worshippers know, it may as well be a name that sprang from nothing...(like it not mattering whether our god first appeared in Sumeria or Judea - either way, its not a language related to what most of us speak today on a daily basis)
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799
Axiem
sinic
sinic
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat 10 Sep 2016, 05:56

Re: Mto

Post by Axiem » Wed 07 Feb 2018, 04:56

Keenir wrote:
Wed 07 Feb 2018, 04:32
do they care? if the point of the sound-name is so humans have something to call them, that's different from how they self-identify...isn't it?
Wouldn't you care if a parrot called you a different thing every time it saw you? Human-speak names might still be different than their self-identification whatever, but that doesn't mean they don't still have some measure of vanity around it.

They'd pick a collection of human-speak sounds to identify themselves, I think. Then that gets battered by a particular language's phonotactics.
well, the deity is probably the only one left from that long ago
Er, no? The deities are explicitly all siblings, and all made first contact with humans (that is, when they chose their tribes) at essentially the same time (give or take a couple of years at most). And the stories of those interactions would be recorded and passed down, I imagine. It's kind of a major event when a deity shows up and is like "oh hai, here's magic"
Conworld: Mto
:con: : Kuvian
Keenir
runic
runic
Posts: 2502
Joined: Tue 22 May 2012, 02:05

Re: Mto

Post by Keenir » Wed 07 Feb 2018, 05:18

Axiem wrote:
Wed 07 Feb 2018, 04:56
Keenir wrote:
Wed 07 Feb 2018, 04:32
do they care? if the point of the sound-name is so humans have something to call them, that's different from how they self-identify...isn't it?
Wouldn't you care if a parrot called you a different thing every time it saw you? Human-speak names might still be different than their self-identification whatever, but that doesn't mean they don't still have some measure of vanity around it.
not really care, no (but then, I also avoid them if I can)...but for the same reason, I wouldn't worry about what that name meant in human speech - because even if it means "Lord of all Dung Heaps", I will outlive them, and if anyone asks later on, I can make up a new, more flattering meaning. (like "Most Sacred Friend")

(other gods might know the real meaning, but their names might be no less flattering (and I'd know their human-given names just as they know mine)
They'd pick a collection of human-speak sounds to identify themselves, I think. Then that gets battered by a particular language's phonotactics.
then please stop worrying about it. just pick some names, and say that that's them after the battering.
well, the deity is probably the only one left from that long ago
Er, no? The deities are explicitly all siblings, and all made first contact with humans (that is, when they chose their tribes) at essentially the same time (give or take a couple of years at most). And the stories of those interactions would be recorded and passed down, I imagine. It's kind of a major event when a deity shows up and is like "oh hai, here's magic"
should've added "only one, except for other gods and any humans being blessed/cursed with an extended lifespan" when I had the chance.

I'll reiterate my earlier suggestion: try writing a page or two...even if you scrap it, it will help.
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799
Post Reply