My Fair Lady - Social Insanity, Part 2

This is the second post in a series that will look at different components of the amorphous blob called society and how they're relative to Shadows & Silver and to realistic game worlds in general. Last time we discussed racism. Today's topic: Gender Roles.

I remember when one of my college history courses covered the American feminist movement. At one point the professor asked for all the girls in the class that were feminists to raise their hands. Out of the 70 or so girls in the class, only two did.

"Do you mean to tell me," the professor asked, "that only two of you are in favor of a woman's right to vote or to own property or have any legal status whatsoever?"

One student responded, "Well, everybody wants that. We just mean we're not bra-burning lesbians."

As society has rolled along, feminism has moved from the equal rights movements of the turn of the century to the militant feminism of the 60's and 70's to the emphasis on democratic reform we find so often today. Feminism today has different implications than it has in the past. But while the connotations and specifics have changed, the overall situation remains the same. After millennia of struggles, try as we might, there's still gender inequality, both de facto and de jure, both at home and abroad.

Curious, then, how we seem to conquer the issue so easily in fantasy worlds.

Perhaps it's the idealism that finds its way into fantasy, the same sort of worldview that results in black and white depictions of morality. Surely, if the land espouses all that is noble and just, it will support equal rights for women and everything will be wonderful, right? In fantasy we so often seek to fix the ills of society only to replace them with ham-fisted lessons about how good will triumph over evil. We force contemporary worldviews on a society apparently so backwards that it's managed to remain in a feudal state for thousands of years, then don't even stop to think about the implications. If your fantasy world doesn't assume gender stratification, you're missing a valuable opportunity for roleplay and powerful storytelling.

How did gender stratification begin? Sociologists usually assume it was a natural outgrowth of biological capabilities: men, being stronger took on the role of provider and protector, while women, as the bearers of children, took on the domestic roles that kept them close to home, protected as a valuable resource in the continuation of the species. Social evolution, in other words. Those societies that didn't develop in this way put women at risk, decreasing the chance that enough women would bear children for the society to survive.

This makes sense for a hunter-gatherer society, but why should gender stratification still exist after society transitioned to agriculture and the need for dangerous hunting was removed? And, even more vexing, why does it still exist in contemporary society where women are just as physically qualified as men for most jobs?

We can find one possible answer within Conflict Theory, a sociological discipline which was introduced by Karl Marx in Das Kapital. Marx focuses on the relationship between the bourgeoisie (business owner) and the proletariat (worker). The former controls all the wealth and power while the latter can only obtain wealth and power by serving his bourgeois master. The classes are therefore in conflict; the stronger exploits the weaker to increase his own wealth. We can extend the theory to gender roles: the man, supported by his physical power, exploits the woman. In a world dominated by men, women can only succeed where they bend to men's will, thus making the men even stronger.

Conflict theory is not the only answer we might turn to, however. Talcott Parsons expands on Emile Durkheim's theory of Functionalism, which states that society is the way it is because things serve a useful function. That stratification serves a useful function in the survival of hunter-gatherer humanity is not in dispute, so what function might the contemporary or agrarian society have fulfilled with gender stratification? We might suppose that, through evolution (whether social or biological) women were better suited to fulfilling a more passive role in society, having traits that made them better at their role. The theory goes that women are (whatever the bra-burning lesbians argue) more suited to the careful and nurturing role than are men.

People often bristle when they hear this statement. It's important to make the distinction, though, that we're talking about advantage, not about necessity. What do I mean? Simply that just because a woman's hormones and physical structure make her gentler doesn't mean that she should serve as a housewife, seamstress, or other passive role. It only means she is more capable of it than a man, whose biology and physiology makes him harder, less patient, and more aggressive.

But surely, nature is not all there is to the debate. There's nurture as well: how society has sculpted our personalities, our identities, and our view of gender roles. Girls like pink not because there is some biological imperative that says they must, but because society tells them they should like pink. The same goes for boys and blue. You're ostracized if you deviate from the norm. (The most formative socialization of this sort that occurs is in childhood interactions. As adults, we often decide we'll do what makes us happy, and to hell with the world if it doesn't like it. As children, though, we have a deep psychological need to feel included, part of a larger group. Hence why being popular is so important in high school and so un-important in later life.) Functionalism tells us, though, that society evolved its roles because they fit the biological and social needs of the time. So the perceived social role is only important to society in that it fulfills a need.

But wait! Do those old social roles still fulfill a need? Different cultures stem from different societies, so, surely, sometimes they do. In contemporary America, though, society has changed dramatically. The family structure is beginning to disintegrate. Our divorce rate is over 50%, and more than 25% of American children live in single-parent homes. In addition, the living standard of the average American family is dropping dramatically, requiring even married partners both to leave the home and work just to break even. More and more, the role of the woman as the caretaker of children is exchanged for the role of provider and, unfortunately, she still is not seen as capable of providing, though necessity dictates she must be.

We can't solve the ills of society in a little blog post. But, by extension, neither can we solve them in a game. And really, should we? If conflict is the center of storytelling, isn't the base conflict of woman versus the limitations of society compelling? I've seen character backstories by the truckload that deal with a woman being driven to a life of adventure to escape the chains of an arranged marriage, and nine times out of ten, the conflict stops there. Women in fantasy, it seems, are only chained by society at some distant point in the past. They make a decision to not be the puppets of men and then everything is roses from there. Surely, fantasy is a wondrous thing!

How can we change this? How can we be more compelling?

It starts off small. A little incredulity on the part of men upon seeing a woman out of her socially accepted role goes a long way. She may be ostracized by some or thought incompetent at the least. And some may think her blasphemous. In a society where women are seen as fit only to bear children, cook, and clean, what else would you expect? Those who assume a more egalitarian stance should be few and far between. Men are pricks, and they should be portrayed as such.

In S&S, the treatment of women varies. In Adunay, though, women are barred from serving in the military (except in the capacity of a secretary or nurse), are not admitted to universities, and are rarely if ever allowed to work in professional roles. In the city, most women do menial labor in factories, hire out as servants, or become prostitutes. Those who show exceptional ability may become a nurse, but that's about as far as they can go in the workplace. Even upper class women are treated as second-class citizens. A woman can own property only as long as she is unmarried and has no brothers or sons over sixteen; in those cases, the husband, brother, or son owns it. A woman who inherits money often chooses to stay unmarried to retain legal independence. This, of course, relieves her of whatever good reputation society allowed her to have in the first place.

Being a woman in S&S takes strength. Being a woman and an adventurer, doubly so. The conflict that births that strength should be played up, not down; such resolve in the face of injustice is the thing people tell stories about long after things have changed... if they ever do.

NPCs Are People, Too! - Social Insanity, Part 1

This is the first post in a series that will look at different components of the amorphous blob called society and how they're relative to realistic game worlds and to Shadows & Silver in general. Today's topic: Racism.

Sociology is the study of society and social structures and practices. Like literary criticism and economics, it's often called a "soft science", which is to say that, unlike mathematics or physics, you don't need to have concrete evidence to support hare-brained theories. You can basically just pull ideas out of your ass and people will nod thoughtfully and award you Nobel prizes. (Okay, maybe physics isn't the best example of an opposing science; work with me here.) You don't even have to make sense and, indeed, we often hold beliefs that are based on foolish theories about society that we didn't even know we had. Building a worldview (or, in the case of game developers, a world) on such mistaken assumptions can lead to a faulty end product.

(TANGENT: This is similar to why the U.S., which has for the past century held to the ideas of Keynesian economics, now finds itself in the current financial crisis. The assumption that the economy can be improved by violating the principles that make it work at all is flawed. In practice, the faulty idea actually produces the opposite of what it was supposed to: recession. Yes, it's deeper than that, but this is a post about racism, not stupidity (which, yes, will have its own entry).)

Anyway, finish these sentences.

1. Racism is bad because...
2. Racism exists because...
3. Racism is perpeturated by...
4. Racism can be eliminated by...

No, don't just keep reading. Actually do it. Finish the sentences. That way I can show you why your underlying social theories are illogical and that you suck. (Okay, no, it's so you can compare your logic, evaluate it against my theories and decide which makes more sense and why. If you disagree with me, comment and tell me why.)

If you're like most people, your answers probably go something like this:

1. Racism is bad because... all people are created equal, so no race is inherently better than another.
2. Racism exists because... people don't understand each other's cultures.
3. Racism is perpetuated by... racists spouting their ideas until people believe it.
4. Racism can be eliminated by... punishing racists for showing prejudice and/or spreading cultural awareness.

If you're like most people, you probably chose those answers as knee-jerk responses, because that's what society tells us. What we hear every day is usually what we regurgitate when people ask us what we think. (Hmm... maybe that's support for point 3?)

How would these ideas translate if placed into a game world? Take a typical example: dwarves and elves hate each other. The origin of this trope is found in the Silmarillion, in which a cadre of elves slaughtered a bunch of dwarves because they wanted their mithril mines. In Tolkien-dom, dwarves hate elves because the elves took the shiny stuff they like so much. The elves, of course, hate the dwarves for not understanding that they love shiny things too. Using the theory outlined above, we see the dwarves and elves hate each other because they don't understand each other's culture, right? And the hatred is perpetuated by the surly dwarves not wanting to see both sides of the issue. And the rift can be healed by folks deciding to set aside their differences and get along, a la Legolas and Gimli, right?

This is often the route we take when deciding on the social makeup of fantasy world. Why, in pretty much any given world, do dwarves and elves hate each other? It's not that it's a pervasive stereotype, but that there's a pervasive mode of thought that gives birth to it. Ridding yourself of the stereotype does nothing to rid yourself of the foolish thought that caused the stereotype to exist in the first place. The world in which dwarves and elves are friendly is not significantly different than the world in which they are enemies.

"Wait a minute," I hear you say. "So we're not supposed to make dwarves and elves enemies, but we're not supposed to make them friends, either?" No, the point is that, in either case, the core assumptions are there.

Tolkien does not make the same assumptions about racism that we so often do. In his mind, the dwarves and elves do not hate each other because of a lack of cultural awareness, nor is the chasm between them bridged by a conscious act of goodwill. Tolkien has a specific context, a reason for the enmity: the slaughter of dwarves out of greed. It's not a lack of cultural awareness: it's a natural reaction of hostility after a tragic crime against dwarfdom. No matter that thousands of years have passed. Elves and dwarves are still at odds over a real and very hurtful wound. At the end of the Return of the King, Legolas and Gimli heal the rift not by overcoming cultural differences but by finding that they can love and trust each other and, by extension, each other's races. In Tolkien's world, it's a wondrous statement of the power of friendship. When we try to keep the trope but rob it of the context, our worlds pale in comparison to the Master's.

"So that's it, then? Just give people a reason to hate each other rather than doing it as a matter of course?" No, while that's a step, there's much more to a realistic examination of racism than that. And chances are, if you care about internal consistency at all, you already have reasons for your racial conflicts. But if this is all you've got, then that's just what it is: racial conflict rather than racism.

"Dammit, Michael, what's your point?!?"

Lemme lay it out for you. In Tolkien, the crime against the dwarves was a conflict, and anger towards the perpetrators is an extension of the conflict. Racism is when the hatred towards those who committed the atrocity is expanded to those who did not commit it. So, in effect, it's not a group of elves that killed your people and took your mines, but the elves. That is racism.

Racism is the judgement of a person based on his race, a superficial quality, raher than on his identity, qualities, or actions.

So to a racist dwarf, Legolas is not a valiant warrior who stands out because of his own deeds. Rather, he's an elf, and all that that implies.

Context provides conflict, but, in the minds of racists, it also gives weight to the beliefs they hold. Indeed, the context is seen not as the cause of the racist beliefs, but as their vindication.

To take a real-world example, most of the Christian era has seen racism towards Jews. Common racist beliefs were that Jews wanted to undermine society, destroy the Church, and steal all the Europeans' money. One of the primary reasons for the hatred was that "Jews killed Christ", thus, by extension, making all Jews Christ-killers. "Only a people possessed by Satan could kill Jesus," they'd say, supposing that this was all the proof they needed that Jews were unpatriotic, intolerant, and greedy. Thus the conflict was used as vindication of the beliefs about them. It wasn't a lack of cultural awareness that could be healed by a sudden wave of understanding and the urge to stand around in a circle and sing Kumbaya. While there's still some racism towards the Jews, most of it was squashed by the Holocaust. (To think about: is this because people suddenly realized how ludicrous and dangerous it was to lump others into a group just based on race? Or was it because people suddenly said, "Dude, I think what we did to them is worse than whatever they supposedly did to us"? Since racism is still so widespread, my money is on the latter.)

Why does racism exist? I believe racism serves an inherent social need: namely, to associate with others who are like us. We want to find a group to which we can belong and feel safe with. The more homogenous, the better. In addition, we want to place others in groups and define why they don't belong in ours. You see it in high school: the nerds hang with the nerds, and the jocks with the jocks. If you decide to buck the system, you're a social outcast that none of the cliques want.

But that's not all racism is, right? After all, that would imply that jocks excluding nerds from their clique is an example of racism, right? Correct, which is why we go a step further. Racism is defined as sorting people into groups based on superficial characteristics like physical appearance or ancestry, things that have no bearing on a person's identity (unless they're superficial people as well; the stereotypical high school cheerleader, for example, finds her identity in her appearance). Furthermore, we make the assumption that all people who share that quality share other qualities as well. Jews are soulless, unpatriotic, and greedy. Blacks are uneducated, criminals, and violent. Whites are power-hungry, hateful, and oppressors. The list goes on.

It's not a lack of cultural awareness that causes this but that drive to associate ourselves with a group and hate anyone that's not part of that group. It's not solved by learning some random facts about someone else's group or eating some sort of weird ethnic food (despite the current trends in American schools). It's done by recognizing that people are people, real and unique and worthwhile in their own right, not cardboard cutouts whose only quality is their appearance.

So what does it all boil down to? Basically this: if you're going to have racism, understand how racism works. Have reasons races are at odds, but recognize that the creatures in the game are all people, too. They hate each other to the degree that they choose to find differences upon which to base their persecutions. They also don't all fit the mold you want them to.

Not all dwarves hate all elves. And if that doesn't occur to you when you add a "dwarves hate elves" trope to your world, you're probably either lazy or a racist yourself.

Lore snippet: Humans in Enna enjoy their place at the top of the world. The rest of the races aren't demi-humans; they're subhumans. Orcs, goblins, and even dwarves, are all their misshapen, under-evolved cousins. Nature has destined humans to be dominant, and why not? They're the good guys after all, right?

In Adunay, no one suffers more than goblins. Unlike Krunag orcs, which are openly reviled, goblins are treated as you'd treat a dog turd on your shoe. Goblins have no legal status in Adunay, and can be enslaved, tortured, or even killed without question. As such, there's no goblin society to speak of, save that which can survive in hiding.

Creating Conflict

I've been considering lore and storyline a lot lately while I script, and one of the things I keep returning to is creating compelling conflict in the world. There's several things to keep in mind while creating conflict for S&S.

First, I want the conflict to be realistic. In the real world, though we like to think in terms of good guys vs. bad guys (we Americans are especially notorious for this), conflict is complicated. There are heroes and villains on both sides of every conflict and, though history is generally written by the victors, there's no "right side" in realistic conflicts.

From the beginning, one of the guiding principles of Shadows & Silver has been that there would be no overarching good vs. evil conflict, so it doesn't work to have traditional goblin raiders or the dragon that terrorizes the countryside. Rather, who you root for will depend on your perspective. A good example here is the War of Burdean Sovereignty. From the perspective of Burdeans, Burdea's sovereignty was more important than the political unity of Adunay. The belief in the ability of small states to govern themselves compelled them to action against what they perceived to be an oppressive regime. This is contrasted by the other Adunean states, which believed the strength of a united Adunay was more important than the rights of any individual state. As a character in the world, your viewpoint likely comes down to whether you see yourself as a citizen of Adunay or of your state. Burdeans, for example, are fiercely protective of their independence, and see themselves as Burdeans first and Aduneans second.

Burdea versus Adunay is a representation of the conflict of political identity, but also of security versus liberty. Most soldiers on either side of the war did not sit down to think about where they stood on the individual issues. Rather, the source of their national pride determined how they reacted to the different conflicts the War created.

Second, history is not linear, not just a series of events. Rather, it is a complex web of ideas, actions, and consequences. The effects of any action can be felt across the centuries, just as a butterfly beating its wings in the Pacific causes a hurricane in Florida. It's the way of the world, and the way of a realistic setting.

In S&S, the war with Burdea had consequences that continue to this day. For one, it caused unrest and political dissent in the populace at large on both sides. Social upheaval became a daily occurrence. The infighting also weakened the security of Adunay, making it vulnerable to those both within and without. The old monarchies fought for control even as the coalition devolved into chaos. In reaction to that, a wave of conquests swept Adunay, culminating in the establishment of an Adunean Empire ruled by martial law. Power and wealth lead the Empire to attack its neighbors, and the resulting war with the northern Krunags led to the Empire's fall, once again plunging the land into chaos. Today, though the Confederation has nominally established control over Adunay, but the revolutions continue. Hundreds of factions pull the government this way and that, others seek its downfall entirely.

Thirdly, it's important for the players to have lots of adversaries, but no real villain. Even if the PCs were to put aside their differences and pursue a common goal (how unrealistic is that?), there shouldn't be a Big Bad Evil Guy™ to focus on. Remember, conflict is not found in bad guys; it's found in ideas you oppose.

For a real world example, consider the Palestinian vs. Israel conflict. The conflict is not between people but between ideas. It's not a good guys versus bad guys conflict or a terrorists versus democracy conflict. It's not Hamas versus Mossad. It's one ethnic group's nationalism versus another group's nationalism. It's an idea versus an idea. So, while the idea you support has opponents, there is no "bad guy" to focus your attention on. To win the conflict, you have to unseat an idea, not a leader.

In S&S, a similar conflict can be found in the colonization of former Nerath by the Aduneans and Salicians. These countries see themselves as bringing civilization to the backwards people of the eastern Plain, and they inevitably find themselves in conflict with the native peoples, who don't take kindly to being treated like the scum of the earth. The real conflict here is in the ideas. The West believes that, because of its technological superiority, it has the right to the resources of the East, and that spreading their civilization to them and ridding them of the "Brown Menace" is more than payment. The East believes its ways are its own, regardless of any technical inferiority, and that its lands are not open for exploitation by Western powers.

Finally, conflict exists independently of the PCs. It's not there so the PCs have something to fix. It's there because that's the way things are. If the PCs want to jump in and try to fix things, great. But if their shortsightedness simply messes things up more, even better. National and ethnic conflict is not easily settled, especially when it has lasted for centuries, and creating the illusion of true conflict within the game world requires a lot of forethought.

Think about the role you want conflict to play in your setting. Do you want bad guys versus good guys, or do you want something more fluid, more dynamic? How do you plan to complicate things? Do you want to try to teach the players a lesson as they unravel conflicts into their component ideas? Or do you want a sort of sandbox for them to deal with real-world conflicts within the game?

For those of you participating in S&S, what conflicts would you like to see played out? Most interested here in conflicts of ideas as listed above, but perhaps you have ideas for various factions that might vie against each other?

Plot, Part 4

I got a basic plot for my book that I can start fleshing out. But I've also said I would like to make a Neverwinter Nights world based on Shadows & Silver. I'm going to work some on the plot for the game this time, and I'll begin shifting my focus here from writing fiction to designing a game world.

Writing a plot for a multiplayer game is both similar to and different from writing one for a novel. For one thing, you've got many more characters the story has got to focus on, not just one or two, so the story has got to be flexible enough to account for players of many backgrounds, abilities, and personalities. Secondly, it has to be a conflict that will not be resolved in the book. This has been the downfall of many settings (notably Dark Sun), and is particularly dangerous since it makes it so the players' accomplishments mean nothing. Third, it has to be something the players cannot resolve in a few gaming sessions, but something that they can make progress with so they don't feel useless.

The similarities are still there, though. Even multiplayer plots center around a conflict and the complications that get in the way of solving it. The more difficult the complications are to overcome, the longer the plot is able to last without coming to a conclusion. Often, the resolution of one conflict will reveal a new conflict (e.g., the players topple an evil king only to have the local nobles start warring to determine the successor). One of the best ways to have an ongoing plot is to show a conflict that is too big for the players to do something about on a large scale but is still one they can manage on a small scale. For example, you can't expect the players to do much to end a world war, but they might infiltrate key enemy positions and thus help one side or another.

In this case, I'm going to use the primary conflicts I laid out a couple of posts ago, since they're all things the player can work to change on his own end without a realistic chance of him drastically changing the face of the setting. It also means the story will be flexible enough to account for many players participating in it. I doubt I will have to worry about characters in my book overshadowing players in my world since, for my first book, I settled on a main character who's out to bring in an age of science to trample the age of magic. This implies that it's earlier in the chronology than my world was intended to be, since I had intended a world where technology had displaced magic. This means, then, that whatever happens in my novels sets the stage for the world the players will inherit.

Considering that, what sort of world do I expect to come out of the actions of the characters in my novels? For one, I expect that my main character's goal of toppling the mage-kings will come to fruition, and that the religious and technological orders he supports will come into power. The Church of the Archons, as I've been calling it, has been waging a silent war against the mages for thousands of years, and, after the actions of this character, they are final able to wrest control from them. They have, in the years since, conducted extensive witch-hunts to destroy both mages and magical creatures. In turn, they support the development of machines which, while non-magical, can accomplish wondrous feats and placate a public thirsty for wonder. Over the years, they've managed to convince the public that the mages were either pretenders who simply harnessed the power of science, cruel men who played on their superstitions, or demon-worshippers who obtained power through horrid means. Unfortunately, in its years (I'm thinking maybe a few centuries) of endless witch-hunting, the Church has so thoroughly rid the land of significant presences of magic that most people don't believe in witches and think the Church serves no useful function except perpetuating superstition. In order to solidify its place in the new world, the Church has begun expanding its definition of witch to include undesirable members of society.

So how does the player fit into all of this? I'm thinking that the player is arrested by the Church when he is found without identification papers (or much else, for that matter), and he is being held until he can prove he is not a mage. Just prior to the arrest, though, he discovered that he may be a target for mages and other creatures of magic. If he chooses to divulge this information, the Church will likely give him a job, since he would be excellent bait in catching mages. If not, then he'll be on his own and in need of money in a land that is still suffering the effects of the magical warfare of centuries past: parched land, poisoned water, and rampant plague.

In addition to all this, there will always be wars and conflicts going on as the country tries to maintain its position amidst many lesser lands, and the high tensions means the racial integration in unacceptable in all but the most liberal of places. There should be plenty of plot hooks and quests to show these aspects of the world to the player, and the conflict of the struggle to survive is inherent in all of them, as well as in the day-to-day life of the player character.

I think this is a good start, and something I can flesh out as time goes on. It also begins my shift towards talking about game design, which will start to become the focus of this blog now.

Plot, Part 3

Most external conflicts involve a clearly defined antagonist. This may range from an individual or monster to an organization to the world itself. Your choice of an antagonist will often define the conflict and, thus, the story. In Shadows & Silver, I know I want a world in which black and white morality is not present, so I should pick a person or organization which is neither inherently good or evil. Conversely, the protagonist should be neither good nor evil. Both serve their own ends, and both think they are right.

I have held in my mind for quite a while now the idea of having a society of mages be the primary antagonist of my first book. Mages, by their nature, are powerful people, and the idea that power corrupts is one that fits into my world. The protagonist, then, is fighting against this corruption. Is this black and white? It doesn't have to be. The corruption of power doesn't require that you be a moustache-twirling eeeevil villain. It simply means you are using your power for your own good and not for the good of society in general. When you look at it that way, everyone does that, right? The protagonist, then, is fighting their corruption not out of some idealistic crusade to rid the world of selfishness but because the mages' use of power has come into conflict with his own interests.

How specific do I want to get here? Well, I don't want to go into too many details, since I haven't settled fully on the storyline and don't want to commit to something that won't be in the story. On the other hand, this blog is here for getting my thoughts out in the open. Consider this part a brainstorm, then, rather than an actual plot synopsis.

The protagonist, I think, should be a normal guy. I see him as a peasant in a kingdom run by mages. Our fellow has seen the abuses of magic and is determined to put a stop to their rule once and for all. He falls in with a society of alchemists, scientists, and what have you and, deciding that their way is superior to rule by mages, tries to bring down the mage-kings and replace it with the enlightenment of science. His position, then, is that power should be harnessed by mundane means so it is employable by every man equally, allowing no one to control another without his consent. This is in direct opposition to the position of the mages, which is that the powers of the universe are too precious to be squandered on lesser mortals, and that those with magical power deserve to be rulers.

Our hero seems like a pretty noble guy, yes? Let's dampen that a bit. There's always not-so-noble reasons for doing noble things. For instance, it's quite nice to patiently listen to the stories your ninety year-old Aunt Sally tells, but if your only reason for doing so is to make sure you are written into her will... I suppose we can all agree it's more noble to simply not listen to her. Similarly, our fellow here is not on this crusade because he wants justice for all humanity; he's doing it because he hates the mages and can see nothing more fitting than to have power equally distributed among commoners. Why he hates them I can decide later (I have several ideas I am sifting through), but this works for a basic conflict.

Plot, Part 2

Whenever you have opposing interests, you have a conflict. The more diverse the opinions of people in your world, the more conflicts you are likely to have. Shadows & Silver is specifically designed not to conform to the typical black and white method of thinking so common to fantasy today, so there should be plenty of places where conflict can be found. I'm going to establish five core conflicts for the world. These will be conflicts that drive the actions of most people in the world and around which my stories will usually center.

1. The struggle to survive. Shadows & Silver is a gritty world, one in which survival is hard and in which things can always get worse. Three things come to mind that make survival difficult for the common person: famine, economic disaster, and plague.


2. Owners versus workers. Ah, the essential class struggle. This has been one of the primary conflicts we have seen throughout the modern age, especially with the advent of industry. In a time where the common people cannot afford food, they are forced to work for however little the owners want in order to survive. Of course, some people decide to fight the system...


3. Old versus new. Industry, being a relatively new thing, is hailed by many as the savior of mankind (note: this implies that whatever order came before industry was disastrous). Proponents of the old orders fight against it, trying to keep things as they were so they don't lose their place in society. I'm seeing agriculture versus industry here as well as other things: faith versus cynicism, magic versus science, and chaos versus order.


4. Civilization versus savages. Those who have discovered industry always see those who have not as savages. Either they lord their knowledge over them or they try to help them out of well-meaning but unwanted paternalism. Either way, it makes the "savages" resentful; they're proud of their ways and don't think they should change. Often, those who do are seen as traitors. Many accept just enough help from their educators to fight them off with their own weapons, leaving the civilized country to conclude that the savages are just not worth the effort. (Note: could be modelled after America's struggle with its natives, British colonization of Africa, etc.)


5. Racial hatred. Scientific learning gives people more excuses to hate each other. I see humans in Shadows & Silver as the dominant race, and theories of evolution they posit likely give them excuses to look down on other races, if not persecute them entirely. Of course, the attacks are usually aimed at age-old racial enemies, not friends who happen to be less "evolved."

Plot, Part 1

Whether you have a theme you wish to communicate in your work or not, all stories have some sort of conflict at their center. Such conflict can be external or internal. External conflict is the most common and usually takes the form of the protagonist versus an antagonist. For example, the novel Night Watch, by Terry Pratchett, pits Commander Sam Vimes against the insane criminal Carcer Dun. Internal conflicts deal with the protagonist versus himself. A good example is Anakin Skywalker's internal struggle between the Light Side and the Dark Side in Star Wars. Often, stories have both internal and external conflicts. In The Old Man and the Sea, Santiago battles with the marlin (external) as well as with his own desire to give up his chase and rest (internal). Regardless of the type of conflict, stories always contain them.

Stories also frequently contain complications. If the story had no complications, the protagonist could waltz right through it, easily solving the conflicts. Night Watch has Commander Vimes vaulted back into the past and has to be careful not to cause paradox when he meets his younger self. To top it off, Carcer (who has also been transported back) allies himself with those who are plotting to overthrow the government, a conflict that, historically, caused much bloodshed in Ankh-Morpork. In Star Wars, Anakin has premonitions of Padmé's death and believes that giving in to the power of the Dark Side is the only way to save her. Frequently, good stories have many complications keeping the protagonist from solving a relatively simple problem. In effect, complications are subconflicts which the protagonist must resolve before dealing with the primary conflict. Sometimes, as with Anakin Skyalker, complications are simply paradoxes pulling the protagonist between extremes (Anakin wants to follow what he knows is right, so he leans towards the Light Side; he also wants to save those close to him, so he leans toward the Dark).

After overcoming complications, the protagonist can then deal with the main conflict. This is called the resolution. The resolution of Night Watch results in Vimes successfully capturing Carcer and averting much of the bloodshed of the revolution. Resolutions are not always happy endings, however. Santiago successfully wins the battles against himself and the marlin, only to lose his catch to sharks and nearly die at sea. Anakin falls to the Dark Side and still loses Padmé, only to be redeemed in the last few moments of his life an ending that, while it could have been worse, was still far from happy.

We'll start working on some plot next time following the formula laid out here: conflict (external or internal) → complications → resolution.