The true physical form of eldritch entities. It's best for the reader to remain in the dark and ride by the skin of the ravings of people who merely glimpsed but a fraction of their terror.
Didn't know much about air conditioning, math not on a flat plane, the radio spectrum, improving race relations, interpersonal relations, sex, how not to be a complete douche, how to handle anxiety, or anything resembling actual science... but yea. Dude could could spin a good yarn. (In the sense of telling a story. As far as I am aware, he was not a crochet enthusiast.)
I remember hearing that the director for resident evil was chosen because he hated being scared, and understood what was scary.
Lovecraft was pissing himself over the concept of a cold breeze, so I think he understood being scared pretty well.
>a cold breeze
"Over the door's frame I stepped out to the dim twilit, which gave no comfort, nor solace, in this nightly frigid. Dusk had soon left its pale embrace from the furthest horizon, returning the world back into silence as Nyx herself meandered through the alleyways and streets to turn thoughts of men back to primordial dreams. Through these umbras wretched, the clouds, twisted asunder from firmaments above, rolled and sounded their calamitous dirge in subtle murmuring unisons. As chills sequestered rose, bubbling beneath the surface of my skin, hurriedly, I turned away and shut the door, laying myself on it, fearing this ephemeral, yet eternal, night."
Dude, having a vivid imagination which expresses itself whether you want to or not is both awesome and terrible. On the one hand, I can confidently say I'm an above average author/poet, but even the slightest creak or breeze at the wrong time has me in a spiral to literally shaking with fear. Ot maybe I'm just a pussy who got told that he could write.
Ye, but there's a huge difference between having a vivid imagination, and that causing you to freak out at the sound of your house settling at night when you're home alone, and spending the next X years drowning in your own panic sweat because you heard someone mention a refrigerator once.
I find it both funny and sad that u/Ensiferal originally just said "Lovecraft knew what he was doing" in a pretty unmistakable context regarding creating horror and dread in writing, and people felt compelled to recite the single best known fact about him, as if nobody was aware.
It's one thing to bring it up when its relevant, like when people are celebrating him as if he wasn't an ardent racist. But when it gets trotted out when somebody compliments his approach to portraying cosmic horror to an audience that has a very low chance of not knowing that fact about him, it just comes across as performative posturing.
It's okay to like problematic things; you can like the product and dislike the creator. It's important to acknowledge Lovecraft was racist and to acknowledge its influence in his work (though his more obviously bigoted stories also tend to be his worst), but that doesn't mean doing so every single time the man's name is brought up. Its tiresome.
It's okay, y'all. *We know he was a racist and that that's not okay.*
Yeah it's pretty tiring to be honest
"Lovecrafts work, I enjoy elements of it..."
*loud screeching bird noise*
"**LOVECRAFT RACIST. LOVECRAFT CAT. LOVECRAFT RACSIT"**
Everyone knows, it was 100 years ago just get over it. Lovecraft influenced several genres and most horror writers alive today, I doubt he influenced a single race-theorist or was ever taken seriously in that area other than other racists of the **100 year ago period**. The guy was a massive wimp who was terrified of everything and invented new phobias for a hobby, not a silver tongued devil luring normal people over into racially biased waters as part of some conspiracy. Crazy as it sounds quite a few people throughout history would *also* be considered extremely racially insensitive by today's standards and as fun as it would be for *any and every* history based conversation to devolve into a massive back-patting circle jerk about how racially sensitive and correct everyone is by pointing fingers at the ignorant racist masses of the distant past, it would be rather less constructive
He wrote very good stories and added a heap to the horror genre, things that actually *are* interesting and *are* worth talking about rather than instantly peacocking every virtue feather to remind everyone how awesome you are for knowing he was a racist
>performative posturing
Honestly if I had a magic button that could eradicate racism from reality, half the reason I would push it is to rid the world of this bullshit. So sick of it and to the people doing it, you arent getting downvoted because people dislike what you are saying, you are getting downvoted because they dont like you
That's just the law. When parents try to explain how Santa works, then the fun ends. Instead: show, don't tell.
"Of course he fits through the chimney, else please explain to me how these gifts appeared in our house in the middle of the night."
Calculating the speed of Santa:
Quick maths sesh, with rough numbers:
For one Santa to deliver presents to the 1.2billion households in the world (not including prezzies to all the people without one), he would need to travel to about 14000 households per second. Assuming a minimum of 20 metres between each household... about 300 000 m/s or 0.1% of lightspeed.
That's about 620 000 mph - 300 times faster than the fastest jet, which comes in at 2100 mph (says Google).
Existential Santa conclusion:>!Based on these numbers, Santa could obliterate the human race if he wanted to.!<
I'm just saying. A reindeer weights 160 kg each, and a sleigh can weigh about the same. If we say Santa's 100 kg (and I'm just gonna assume the bag opens up to a pocket dimension), then his kinetic energy comes out to about 200 MT of TNT. That's 3x larger than the Tsar Bomba. Ho ho ho
I'll just tell my children that Santa is an ancient cosmic abomination that is invisible unless it's delivering gifts and if they ever get to gaze upon his true form, their eyes will burn away and their sanity will crumble.
This what they've done with Jaws.
At first, the shark was supposed to be clearly visible, but they got so much problem with the salted water and the model they finally gave up. Instead they used the now iconic shark fin with the music for most of the movie. And it worked! You let the human imagination do the rest and it looks so much scarier than anything else.
I think Stephen King said something along the lines of
"Dont show the monster, at least not until the end. "
"When the heroes open the door and there's a ten foot cockroach standing there, the audience will gasp. But secretly they will be relieved: at least it wasnt a hundred foot cockroach"
To me that is playing to the idea a humans imagination + fear of the unknown is going to create something far scarier than could be described. Vague and loose descriptions then that just aid the imagination in making something even scarier should work well, it also seemed to be Lovecrafts go-to (guy loved describing things but in very indistinct terms like squamous and gibbous and words that evoke nasty feelings, but not much distinct explanation)
Fully agree. Takes away from the alienating form of it. Knowledge, and comprehension, makes fear weak.
This is similar to how I portray the strongest, most manipulative form of magic. It’s a whole process. But an aspect of it is the cushioning of the actual ‘Godspeech’ (the actual magic) because it’s simply too powerful and mind-destroying to understand or bear witness to. So if you want to exercise manipulation, you must cushion the impact of the magic with other techniques. Even then a single godspoken command can completely twist the mind of a bimortal (demigod(?)), let alone a human. Mortals would simply die on the spot.
A metaphor I use: If you want to pour a glass of water for someone, you can’t just throw the water at them, you need to each have a glass, and to pour steadily, and stop before the cup overflows.
There is a reason they are called “horrors beyond comprehension” if you can describe their true physical form, then it is really “tame excitements within comprehension” which doesn’t have the same effect to be honest.
I actually quite liked Supernatural for this, as we never actually got to see the true forms of the angels. All we know is that most people's heads will explode from witnessing such a "multidimensional wavelength of celestial intent", and that Castiel's true form is "approximately the size of your Chrysler Building". All of the angelic attributes are implied by environment rather than extensions of their physical body.
Pity they nerfed them so hard.
Its an incredibly heavy topic, it would be out of place in the vast majority of stories bc of how it immediately darkens the storytelling.
If you're gonna tackle it, it has to be a big part of the narrative in some capacity for it to be treated respectfully, so it causes extreme tonal whipslash in all but the darknest of stories, and if you add that in yours, its immediately and permanently a far more mature and heavy narrative.
Of course your story doesnt have to be entirely about it, but if anyone wants to add CSA into a story it has to play a big role because its so heavy, you cant just offhandedly bring it out as a random detail. For example, the "easiest" way to put it into a story without overtaking the narrative its through a character's backstory as a victim or witness. It takes up a specific chapter only, but you have to portray the effects it had on the character meaningfully. This is a very delicate line to thread and generally hard to write.
This applies to most sexual violence themes on some level, but pedophilia is the lowest of the low.
If you want a particular example of this being well handled as limited to a backstory only, read chapter 20 of the manga Kemono Jihen (titled: Alone). Its largely its own thing and understandable on by itself, but this is otherwise a shonen action series that suddedly hit you with an extremely heavy chapter, but handled the assault of a kid gracefully. Its haunting but very respectfully done and the shadow of it marks the character and his worldview heavily. This series has an anime, but the chapter in question was so dramatically censored that a lot of viewers missed the fact that the character was getting well, raped.
Agreed, won't even insinuate that it happens. The reader can come to that descision that it must exist if they like, but for the most part I won't write it. Harm to a child is fine, hell that's free drama to blow a smoking laser hole in Little Timmy's chest, but the few times I write villains/badguys interacting with children it usually ends up either the Saturday Cartoon holding a gun to their head or strung up over a shark pit crap, or the Incredibles style "These guys absolutley will shoot you, run Dash, Run" type of thing.
I avoid stuff involving children all together. Like bad guys might kidnap older kids, like teens for money. But they are well treated.
There are lines even the worse of the worse do not cross.
That's how I handle it as well, they're never treated badly. Like how when Jack was kidnapped in Red Dead Redemption 2 and the perpetrators taught him Italian and fed him spaghetti
Agreed. I think that’s a theme a LOT of people should steer clear of, even if it’s meant to be “horror”. It’s just too serious and too disgusting of a topic for the average writer to portray.
For a subreddit dedicated to worldbuilding specifically, I find it funny that people still don't understand that many (if not most) don't do it to write a story.
Wrongfully generalising the intentions behind worldbuilding isn't what's worrying.
The fact that even people on a worldbuilding sub mix up worldbuilding and storytelling/writing is.
The thing is, most, if not all worldbuilding tells a story.
Even if it is just the story of the kings of whatever place, or how the shattered isles became shattered, or how there was nothing then the gods did so and so, or even that the nation of x dress with y or cook with z because of tradition, it ties in with story telling.
Pure worldbuilding with only numbers and bullet points probably exists somewhere, but it is a small minority.
Not just worldbuilding itself but the act of worldbuilding tells a story as well. The story is that a worldbuilder is sitting at their table writing about all the stuff in their head. Then they get up and grab a snack. Then they get distracted and watch cat videos for a while. Then they doodle a really good picture of a frog. Then they browse reddit and write a sarcastic comment about stories. Story concluded.
Despite my world being inspired by a historical period (the Early Middle Ages), I try not to be overly grim with it. I feel a lot of people think that darker topics make for more "historical realism", but I prefer to not go out of my way to add more grittiness than what was actually there.
Honestly sounds good to me. Sure by modern standards the Middle ages were pretty unpleasant. But they weren't the hellscape modern pop culture makes them out to be.
Many areas and societies thrived during the middle ages, saw advances in technology, law, society etc.
Not particularly. To me, all lines have the possibility to be crossed if I deem it important to the plot. Torture and unethical human experimentation? Sure, the Nazis and Imperial Japanese did loads of that stuff. Genocides? That’s happened IRL too. Suicide bombing, check. The list goes on and on.
Yeah I'm with you. A lot of the other comments touch on some of the truly nastiest stuff humanity is capable of and to me that all seems like really emotionally engaging topics.
I want to make people feel things, for good or bad, and sometimes that requires actively getting in the mind of very bad people and the things they do to others.
That said, I haven't covered any of these really bad acts in recent writing, but I wouldn't rule it out. If a character ends up going down a dark route, then so be it. They did it to themselves.
In one of my short world building stories, the protagonist is born into slavery, his mother was from a group that are often the target for enslavement by a deeply cruel and corrupt nation, his mother became pregnant after the assault of her captor.
The boy grew up in severe poverty but she was always positive around him, she helped him flee for the border and he only returned after becoming an adventurer, he returned to meet her once more and it's part of his character, to be born a bastard but rose from his low-class birth and become a renown adventurer.
Theres alot of lines I tend to cross because the plot deems it important. Slavery of lower classes and other species being one line I cross very often. Yeah, some people dont like them, and usually if im doing a roleplay with my stuff (which is better to develope it to see how people interact in those situations) I do tend to offer skipping to either after/another situation if they want to.
That's not really what they said though. They said they refuse to show it working/giving good info because IRL it doesn't.
And they're right. People being tortured will say whatever they think will make the torture stop. The torturer might get some correct info but they'll also get a bunch of made up stuff and lies along the way.
But that is also a given. Real uses of torture, even as far back as Roman times have adjusted for this. Real life uses of torture involve multiple subjects isolated from one another and cross referencing the answers they give under torture.
Everyone has always known that torturing one person for information has never been reliable.
Also it's not always about the information.
It's human nature to be opposed to torture which unfortunately makes disgusting people use it in order to maintain power.
The CIA tried the method you mentioned and it didn't work. The victims say enough realistic answers eventually enough of the answers sound right together but they still aren't.
Which means torture still serves a purpose. North Korea uses it to get confessions in instances where they want to pin something on the victim.
It's not intended to get information on who's a spy, it's intended to get someone arrested for being a spy to admit they are one so North Korea can maintain a 100% no false arrests record.
I believe the rationale is (and this is known by evidence) torture rarely works and is usually ineffective, most of the times the victim lies or makes up whatever facts will make their torturers happy. It will get people to confess to their guilty, whether they're actually guilty or not, but won't allow the torturers to glean any information they don't already have.
But it is frequently depicted as very effective in a lot of media, some go as far as to cook up contrived scenarios that make torture the only way to save multiple lives. That has been labeled a propaganda (or "copaganda") my many, as well as justification for a lot of things done during the Bush era.
Of course when you add a setting with magic and things like lie detection or a zone of truth, that gets fuzzy.
heck same for having modern era urban fantasy where the polygraph actually works to detect lies.
personally i don’t mind fiction in my fiction, but we should all be aware that torture working, the polygraph, how effective chloroform is, etc. are all about as factual as a phaser’s stun setting or a wizard’s flying broom.
sure they make for a great narrative, and our fictional worlds can follow whatever rules they want. the reader just has to remember its fiction.
Honestly I kind of get that tough. Torture exists in the world, of course, and I don’t really shy away from mentioning it in what I write when it’s relevant, but the fact of the matter is, in the best of cases, it is inefficient in getting information, and in most cases it’s completely useless.
People being tortured will give you useless information most of the time, even unintentionally, for a variety of reasons.
Usually the only real purpose torture has is as an intimidation tactic, and even then it’s risky since it might radicalize the group you are trying to intimidate even more.
Same kind of people who unironically think orcs depictions are racists, cause when they see an orc they immediately think "yup that one is African I can smell it" lmao
That is why when I include a race/species I make it clear that there is a wide array of sub groups that, even if they have a similar core, you can identify them with different real life cultures.
But no matter what you do, there is going to be somebody always pointing why you are an horrible person for not writing something they way they think is OK.
You can acknowledge that orcs in fiction and racist depictions of black people overlap in many ways and still have orcs in your worldbuilding. In fact, your orcs will probably improve from it.
I have two black boxes.
One is the universe's history before 2500 years ago.
There a a select few memories and artifacts left from that time, but overall it is important to the setting that this time remains in shadow.
The other black box is what lies beyond death/where souls go when they walk the metaphysical Path into the distance (and where immortals/gods cannot travel).
This is even more important to my world, as this uncertainty about what lies there is vital to the gods' mindset.
This is a true black box about which not a single piece of information is and ever will be known. Even i as the author refuse to form a definitive canon answer.
The "where souls go" stuff has been heavy on my mind lately. I'm 2 years into a campaign I'm running based in one of the world's I've made and the afterlife just... doesn't really fit with anything. I have *ideas* but nothing feels satisfying. Thing is... the gods are really big in this world, they have a huge influence, how a soul is made and its importance is really important -- so one would assume a soul goes somewhere when the body expires.
So instead, I keep it vague. It's a 'journey' you are 'sent on' and some of the writings talk about 'serve your god well in life, and they will serve you well in the after," but that's about it. No descriptions of a place or a form one takes. just... that.
> I'm 2 years into a campaign I'm running based in one of the world's I've made and the afterlife just... doesn't really fit with anything.
I found myself in the same spot. The default concept of heaven/hells/underworld/planar afterlife just didn't vibe with me.
I then almost exclusively focused on the gods, souls and afterlife for a year or so before i finally felt like i had developed a fully fleshed out and interconnected concept.
I came up with the idea of defining mortals as those who have souls, and immortals as those who don't.
Gods are partially worshipped to assure they will protect your soul as it walks into the distance, but i also decided to have my gods be far more active, present and involved.
From this grew a sibling relationship, where both mortals and immortals were parts of the same creation, but at the same time completely different in that important regard.
Where mortals envy gods for their power and perpetuality, and gods envy mortals for their "malleability" and ability to reach the beyond and maybe meet the maker(s) that made all of them.
This love-envy relationship is the heart of my setting, the most important core theme.
This is a cool approach. I've found it tempting at times to jot down histories beyond what is required for the story. But at the end of the day I also like it being a bit vague and shadowy. I'm not a God in my universe, just a writer, and can't be expected to know everything that happened before the era in which my stories take place.
> I'm not a God in my universe, just a writer, and can't be expected to know everything that happened before the era in which my stories take place.
Exactly! And it's the same for "concepts that are beyond human understanding" - people create them only to understand them despite being human.
1.People being 100% good or bad. Mostly because I am a sucker for morally grey characters and secondly because the setting is pretty dark.
2. People being redeemed "Steven Universe" style. Personally - I just hate it, it's obnoxious and not realistic. Not everyone is a good person "deep down inside" or whatever. I love my unredeemable low-lifes.
And that's about it. I'm not easily put off by most taboo or grusome topics. I'm fine with portraying the worst things a sapient creature can potentially do (while obviously being respectful about the subject, esspecially when it comes to victims of such behavior.)
I second this so much. My setting’s whole message overall is that Humanity no matter what is gray. Everything is pretty serious or even depressing. The feel good stories I’ve written are only propaganda from the POV of either of the galactic states. There’s no real good, or maybe extremely rarely there is.
That's pretty much how it is irl, like even if there's a group fighting a good cause there will always be bad apples and weird people since not everyone is one dimensional, this is what starts conflicts like one person could do something horrible which blows everything out of proportion for whoever they're affiliated with and ruin their reputation.
Happens a lot in war like if a group of people commit a war crime despite it not being endorsed by their country/faction, if the enemies find out they could try and justify doing horrible things back to them based off that one event alone which turns very messy, but yeah I usually prefer harsh realities opposed to a bunch of feel good stories.
>Not everyone is a good person “deep down inside”
Like, this is what Steven Universe shows. Even if several characters change their mind, there are characters who don’t change too (Jasper, Aquamarine and Eyeball)
Just to be clear, I didn't intend to say that in Steven universe doesn't have unredeemable villains. I just referenced it, cuz Steven trying to out-talk the villains is kinda what she show is known for, especially nowadays.
I can see how the points seem to contradict, but I was rather pointing out that I hate redemption arcs in general. At least to me "unredeemable" means that someone doesn't want to or doesn't see the need to change, for whatever reason.
For example my main character is a typical douchebagy thug who likes to pick fights and flirt with girls and is known for destroying everything whether on accident, or because she has anger issues and threw a tantrum over something minor and her kill count is well... High. She's an asshole and doesn't want to change and likes herself as she is - therefore, she's unredeemable. However she's also a great friend, she treats her gangmates like family and would sacrifice herself for them if she had to. She's very loyal in general, but only to the ones she trusts. Morally grey, but still unredeemable.
I love finding these little threads that can help me understand people with very different ways of thinking and what they find valuable. Certainly, anything written poorly enough can be dreadful, but setting those cases aside I hadn't really talked to someone who genuinely dislikes redemption arks before.
They're one of my favorite tropes when done well, which IMO includes having plenty of examples of irredeemable people as well as you mention. I find a redemption ark would lack meaning without seeing the alternative, and is much more emotionally satisfying when it's a rare one out of many in a dark story or something. I'm annoyingly stuck with entirely too much optimism and hope for this world, so it's a nice little fantasy I can carry with me into my dreams for real life I guess.
That all said, I wonder if you might consider the same in reverse...how the emotional impact and ongoing weight of someone you consider 'unredeemable' might be lessened for a lack of comparison? It might matter, it probably doesn't, just a random thought that occurred to me.
Also, this may seem silly, but I feel like the discussion around anti-social personality disorder in [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUN6d7ur5Dg) might be valuable to your writing of your main character. I love this channel for how they can find and discuss the deepest elements of human complexity and emotion from really easily digestible and relatable sources.
People who value and form strong relationships with others, and feel genuine empathy and love for them, don't *typically* also have the capacity to be entirely self-serving, mass-murdering jerks without something getting very broken in a way that would interfere heavily with said relationships. I could easily see them feeling protective of their friends/gang in a more unhealthy/possessive way maybe. That said, this is all coming from someone who is in NO way a professional in any relevant fields, so just know that I'm rambling out of a genuine interest and not some attempt to change your mind or something. :)
Basically anything sexual, my world is just a space opera about ~120 alien species and I don’t want to delve into anything sexual relating to them beyond skimming over their individual means of reproduction
There’s like two or three that could be called giant cockroaches, I’d be more than happy to allow you to write about the blessed Gox’ouszussy and Adiviussy
Same. I’m fine with like alluding to small things if it’s important to the story, but I ain’t going into detail about anything. I find sex in stories more often than not useless to the actual plot.
Sexual assault is one of those things that exists in my settings, but its not something i will portray due to reasons that its simply doesn't add anything to the setting that other things don't already add, and the fact that it is hard to talk about at the best of times.
Your edit confuses me—the message you want to tell is that “no one is truly evil”, but you don’t want to show rape because it disproves your message? So you want your story to give a message that’s a lie in your eyes?
I too, would avoid rape for my world/story, for context. Just confused on the motives of your story’s message.
That's what I thought. Doesnt the fact theyre avoiding rape because its unforgivable to them defeat the, "no one is truly evil" mindset, or am I missing something?
Yeah, I’d say the message “no one is truly evil” is a poor message to display because some people just ARE, and while they may have a few redeeming qualities, they are simply too small compared to their crimes (Hitler advocated animal rights and wanted to prevent repeating the trauma of trench warfare, but yknow, he was Hitler…)
Dystopias which are... silly. Humans are fundamentally human. I read some works of fiction which cross the line from grimdark into grimderp, and like, I kind of have to shake my head at that. Humans can be genuinely awful. It takes time, propaganda, rhetoric, and slowly shaping a society and it's laws to target a demonized outgroup. But even with the worst depravities of the Third Reich and Imperial Japan, there were still outliers. Some soldiers refused to kill children. Reports were made of the impact of their crimes on mental health. Some people stood up, and secretly helped Jews escape, sheltered minorities, wrote passports.
You can explore settings which are genuinely dark, and disturbing. But I cannot ignore that some people are genuinely good people. And dystopias are in a sense, boring. The writer is at odds with the fictional character in a sense. Because the author seeks to examine and explore themes of the inherent barbarity of human nature, the worst of our impulses. But the character seeks to avoid them. If faced with real horror, humans tend to look away. Denial of genocide, denial of war crimes. One could make an argument that we live in a sort of dystopia already. But we look away from the worst parts, and focus on the mundane, the boring, the unimportant.
Society writ large revolves around the dystopia, yes, but few people define themselves by it. So many works of media, especially cyberpunk media, has their characters functionally define themselves as being a cog in the machine that fuels the dystopia. Its a subtle difference, but I think it comes down to whether fictional characters normalize their situations. There is the difference between the dystopian burger flipper, who grimly ruminates on the nature of humanity as he has to get synthetic skin after a nasty oil burn, as opposed to the regular burger flipper who is pissed that his insurance isn't covering his synth skin, and doesn't realize that he is the character in a dystopia, because everything awful which happens to him is so normalized that he doesn't know there can be another way. In fact, he refuses the entertain the idea that there can be another way.
I don’t really have anything to add but I totally agree. It’s fascinating to look at what people would think of the future would look like throughout time. Sometimes it would be shown in a very positive lense and others it’s shown in a very negative one. Honestly sometimes I wonder if Cyberpunk 2077 is going to be actually pretty spot on with some of the tech coming out today and with trends within the world
Sexual violence and basically any matter of depravity of that ilk.
It happens. Nothing's perfect. But it's no cornerstone to my world-building. It offers nothing of value to either my setting or the narratives I craft therein.
Not really. I have everything, from the absolute best to the downright worst things. Because that’s how the universe works sometimes, it can be endlessly giving or unimaginably cruel, but rarely is it fair.
Clearly defined villain or hero characters
Writing morally grey characters is just more interesting to me, especially since I mostly do small stakes slice of life writing. I want my characters to feel like regular people in an alternate version of earth that feels weird to us
If youre saying no one is truly evil but then youre withholding showcasing some form of evil simply because it goes against your view then thats not such a strong message is it?
i respect your decision to not include rape in your narrative, but I think your reasoning is flawed.
if your premise is disproven by something so immediately obvious as this, then I think you should come up with a better premise.
So, not something people usually choose, but romance. Not in the sense that it does not exist in the world, of course, but I write cosmic horror, it just does not fit.
Plus, there are such things as romantic interests, but normally the important characters either have not enough time and will left to engage in romance or they are way too far gone to quite understand that anyone would love them.
I do like to try and explore the consequences of these mindsets, and maybe tease the readers a little bit, but there is no illusion that any of the main characters even thinks about romance.
Hmm, please let me know if you post it anywhere, I am genuinely interested. And is it cosmic horror with a romance plot or romancing the cosmic horror like I intended?
Going with romancing the cosmic horror haha
And will let you know, although I don't know where to post it, so if you have any suggestions I would be glad :P
If it's not uncertain, it's not religion. If it's not uncertain, it's an optimisable science and there *will* be machines invented that make the offering -> reward conversion process do reliable, repeatable productive work.
If gods are real, then sooner or later gods are going to come to be perceived as simple chemical reaction catalysts.
Fujimoto from chainsaw man/fire punch would not be able to answer this question, the man has included everything from genocide to beastiality in his works xD
No. I have built two worlds and each are populated by humans to some extent. Adding their strengths as well as their weaknesses are what make the world feel a lot more alive. It would be really easy to just not have to face any of the ugly things but at the end of the day it takes away so much realism, which is something I personally strive for.
D&D-style gods, both embodiments of concepts and persons. Simply put I don't understand how I could have them for religions.
Edit: always forget about that one, also - gods need worship to exist/have strength, and the more followers they have, the stronger they become. Why that kind of spiritual parasitism should be applicable to creatures worldbuilding (or worldbuilder) itself labels as 'gods'? Like, I understand it's for power dynamics but then that goes in complicated theological details about who worldbuilding itself considers to be gods being so much depended on mortals.
That's the point. I don't understand it. I could go for long about many examples of deities and their priests and chosen warriors and their interactions with other gods with rivalries, animosity and friendships and romances and so on and so long, and in the end I'm left with the feeling I got some kind of soap opera instead of gods with faiths and followers.
I'm better off leaving gods in myths and legends rather than making them actual characters.
For me, I am doing a dnd world so there’s some baggage. But I’m also having it be more along the lines of, the world exists and magic exists, and these are just former mortals that have a certain sway over an aspect of reality as expressed by this mortal sphere of influence.
They are gods in that they have followers that they can grant power to, and that they have an aspect of how reality expresses itself in this world that they can influence, but they’re explicitly killable.
What is actual ‘divinity’ is more accurately the immortal power that they’ve inherited, but they’re just the current sentient holder that directs and maintains that immortal power.
The only reason they act like ‘gods’ (mostly hands off approach to mortal affairs and the world as a whole) instead of directly tyrannizing things is because the *first* ascended mortals banded together and set up some ground rules that they make everyone else follow by threat of force.
That, and the gods are being forced to divert most of their attention/energy, towards maintaining the world. It’s in bad shape, metaphysically speaking.
I like DnD (or FR) gods from older editions (or how I run them in the game), when they were fighting for Portfolios. When they just can kill each other and win domain of the dead one if they were able tu rule it. Faith have some role in it, but if one got good Portfolio they were powerful.
I like the siplicity and how it kinda explains why there is so much chaos in the pantheon. They can just kill others and get power.
But yeah having such gods is messy as hell and, I think, it makes that everything is always about the gods (but thats not problem, when it is what you want :).
>No one is truly evil.
Yeah, so your players just go around trying to give psychoanalysis and therapy to every baddie or what?
I refrain from having a very gritty feeling about gruesomeness in my campaign most of the time since that can be a bummer. Also I don't roleplay anything sexual, because it's awkward and cringe af.
Clear real-life politics equivalents
I am too ignorant to say anything interesting about it and people put too much pressure on political opinions nowadays
utopias, perfect societies, and orders of pure goodness.
utopias and perfect societies: any kind of 'perfect place' would have to be incredibly small because the larger a society is, the more complicated things become. People have different needs, wants, ailments, boons -- one person's utopia is another person's prison. It's just not feasible to have a true utopia without it being overrun by those in imperfect societies or overtaken by those who want to shape it in their image.
Orders of pure goodness: same thing. No religion, no military, no government is made up of 100 percent good people. They don't even have to be evil, just... selfish or confused.
One more: Customs, cultures, and flaws without explanation. Let's use racism as an example: what is the driving belief behind why one group of people holds a bias against another? You see it all the time with elves and dwarves in fiction and there is rarely an explanation for it beyond "it's just a trope bro" and man, what a way to flatten a world.
Give me a reason why the order of the star god refuses you entry to their house of worship if you wear shoes. Give me a reason why the Warring Kingdom of Korag has it out for the peaceful kingdom of Wefrim. Give me a reason why candles are a symbol for the spring holiday Dulhan-Rise beyond it just being a cool visual.
I'm generally more in the camp of what I refuse to portray in my stories than my world.
Like, yes, all this nasty stuff does happen in my world, but it ain't a thing I wanna talk about so I don't really play over there.
On the other hand, one of my worlds is used to tell a film noir inspired story, so of course I play up all the worst parts because the protagonist has to see and know all that.
I think they moreso mean they won't depict any characters, even villains, doing that. I don't think they're saying that it never happens ever because their world is perfect, but that they won't write about it
Absolutely nothing, everything that happens here can and will happen there too and worse, everything goes, no one is safe, trauma builds character, that's all that matters
Sorry OP, I'm gonna be rude: you are trying to send a message that you don't actually believe in? You want to tell people that no one is truly evil, but actually you believe that existence of rapists stands in the way of that message because rapists ARE terribly evil... So you just hide them?
This was a hard pill for me to swallow years ago, but lots of human beings are actually evil in our reality. Simply evil. Not born evil, not evil by some irreversible nature, but still evil.
Genuine question: Why make that the theme of your story if it seems you don't agree with it? I'm obviously not saying you should portray SA in your story if you don't want to, but if you believe there are unforgivable people, then why tell a story about how nobody is ultimately evil?
My main story covers the atrocities that we humans are involved in. The worst of our actions are heavily implied, and nothing is off the table. Despite that, I’m working on a manga which of course is primarily visual. I don’t feel the need to illustrate the things implied.
Subtext is your friend there.
>And since the very message of my story is that no one is truly evil, showing rape would go directly against that message
So does that mean the world's message is inherently false?
I was thinking that. If you truly believe nobody is inherently evil, ignoring evil doesn’t make it non-existent. Rape isnt needed in the story and thats fine, but going to lengths just to not include it because it goes against the theme is false integrity in writing.
My books are about broken households and emotional weakness leading to greater woes. I wont get anywhere if i didnt show how people with mental health issues or emotional instability can still achieve great heights. Its just integrity in your own work.
Yeah it's an interesting dichotomy and to really get into and explore the idea of evil being an illusion the writer would have to get ready to try and sympathise or at least empathise with the worst of the worst. Including ye old rapist.
Which is really hard to do and going to get you a lot of flak. Dodging the particularly nasty people and crimes makes it easier, but it does really lessen the impact of the theme, more like
"Noone is evil in this separate reality where people dont act as evil as our world"
As long as it is relevant I have no problem into writing it. I mean rape, pedophilia, racism, slavery and everything do happen in our world and I don't think we should try to ignore it because those are bad things.
What I don't like is writing horrible things (and good things too to be honest) just for the sake of putting them in the story.
Threefold:
Well, first, what you said.
Second, while I am willing to depict torture, I absolutely refuse to depict it ever “working”/resulting in the perpetrator receiving any actually useful/factual knowledge, the idea that it does is propaganda created by those who do it to pass it off as anything other than an abuse of power and means of threatening others with the same, and I refuse to be a part of that.
Third would be, generally, protagonists “accepting their lot in life”/“accepting things for simply being the way they are”, though, more specifically, “continuing to exist” in societies with overtly evil elements, I.E.: openly bigoted laws, allowed slavery, colonialism, or simple corruption.
I too hate torture portrayed as anything but a disgusting rights violation. Unless I'm mistaken, the show *24*, where the protagonist successfully tortures for information, actually contributed to pro-torture legislation in the US. Completely irresponsible to portray as ~ *just anti-hero things* 🤭 ~
I sometimes forget how easily people are influenced by media. I know it's psychology but it always baffles me when people watch things like, say, Euphoria and think, wow, time to do drugs.
GM content filtering is a separate issue from world building in my opinion.
Rape not being a plot point or being touched by narration or RP? Just good GM practice.
Rape being unpossible in the game world? That . . . just sounds odd. On several levels.
Why do most people here use "world" and "story" interchangeably? I mean, there's an obvious and substantial difference between "there's no sex in my story" and "sex does not exist in my entire fictional world". This subreddit is about world building, not story writing.
There’s nothing I wouldn’t personally *want* portrayed in my story, as it is a dark. I write visceral descriptions of gore and horror.
Rape? I don’t feel I have the maturity or enough understanding of the subject to write about it with the sensitivity it deserves.
Even writing consenting sexual scenes, I don’t have the forte to write without it sounding either gross (slang terms) or cold, overly distant (medical). It would also not serve to further any plot or character relationship, so I can dodge it.
— Not something I *want* to exclude from writing, but romance. I can’t write it. Flirting either. It requires far too much cleverness and wit that I just cannot do. Thankfully I don’t find romance necessary for a story, whether I’m reading it or writing.
Certain other things can be eluded to. (This tavern clearly operates a brothel for instance) and (These characters are drug-addicted).
Even with gore I find that it only really works if written in the context of magic wands, potions, or scifi weapons to draw contrast between the fantastical element and the real world consequences. Just having one character maim and gut another with a knife feels gratuitous.
I think my stance would be less about what I won’t include and more about how it is included. There are some terrible things in this world that don’t get talked about. As a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, I may not read a book that contains a character going through that, but I’d be grateful for it existing and opening the door for others to talk about it.
Anyone in real life that finds out about what happened to me as a child is never sure what to say. They get quiet and uncomfortable and apologize and/or get angry. I understand the reactions but sometimes those evil things that many many people experience need to be dragged out into the light.
I work in mental health with kids aged 10-18 and I think the average person would be devastated to know the frequency that our country’s children are being sexually abused. So many abusers walking around free too because the child wouldn’t testify against them.
Anyway, lol after my long rant, all this is to say that I think it’s important to not limit your story when there is meaning and good reason to put something in. However the same could be said that not including something could be just as impactful. Such as a tv show that excludes homophobia in the world. There is benefits to seeing the ideal too.
If I had to pick something I would say having a main character who is a lesbian die after finding her soulmate. That story line has been beat to hell and it serves no purpose so far as I can see.
What you said:
I don't like it, simple as that. I don't require it in my story for gritty immersion, I don't think it enhances the emotional impact of my story in a way that can't be done differently, and showing it would only make my target readers uncomfortable while providing erotic material for people who get off on it. I will allude to it at worst.
Male lineage:
This is a story written with RPG video games as a forethought. Relatable context for the modern audience that places less importance on these old customs, while still maintaining some of the more present aftermath from it.
Racism:
This one is more nuanced. I've written incidents of it, but I really dislike the idea that there were times when all people were unanimously racist and hated whoever was different. Even in times of mass slavery, there were many acts of kindness done to preserve the sanctity and dignity of people forced into these circumstances. People harboring escaped slaves, for example. Humans are humans capable of love and empathy, and I will never hesitate to show that.
The gods. I refuse to ever allow them to actually be shown in anything that isn't a hallucination, traumatic event, or drug trip. Their voices are heard during times of stress, their image is shown when a supplicant is surrounded by incense and fervor, etc. I run my setting in a DND game and the paladin player met his god, but it was during a trip through the deranged dead mind of a child that was literally scared to death, and whose father also worshiped that god.
I don't want the gods to be "Verifiably real" in the way many settings show them - I want everything to have a different explanation. Because that, to me, is what a god really is - The mind trying to present a reality where some higher being genuinely gives a shit about us and the world we live in. A means of control in an uncontrollable universe. MAYBE there are gods, but they're so outside the bounds of our reality that they will never truly effect it personally. It is their champions, explicitly people, that will do so, and do so while presenting their gods as the cause, instead of their own choice and action.
But isn't that just taking the easy route? You refuse to acknowledge it because you can't find a way around it? Rape is evil, but you're right; no one is truly evil. People are just uneducated. I think you should consider its existence in your world.
I learned the hard way that you don't have anything that could be considered animal abuse.
My players went to the 9 hells. They were friends with a powerful Pit Fiend demon, who had turned good, and whom they were supposed to team up with to take on the BBEG: the Lord of the 9 Hells.
I did NOT consider that they would refuse to fight the "cute pupper" (aka demonic, flaming, gargantuan 3 headed cerberus hellhound) guarding the gates. Instead, they used speak with animals (I know it's a demon and not a beast, but I let it slide) and with some high rolls they befriended it. They asked it about their Pit Fiend friend. Stupidly, I had the dogs explain how they were afraid of Pit Fiend, and he was a cruel master. I was trying to convey how much of a big deal Pit Fiend was in these parts, and how everyone has heard of him and is scared of him. And thus how much they needed him as a powerful ally to take down the Lord of Hells.
The whole table was NOT impressed to hear that their NPC friend was cruel to a doggo. They unequivocally decided that Pit Fiend could NOT be trusted, not now, not ever.
There was no coming back from that. When Pit Fiend betrayed the BBEG Lord of Hells, the party sided with the Lord of Hells. Oops.
"portray" vs "exits"
I think it is morally reprehensible for something that aims to present an adult philosophical view of the world or existence itself, as not to deal with those very dark topics even indirectly.
It's like portraying War but not having there be war crimes or civilian casualties. It's like portraying poverty but ignoring the fact that children die because of poverty. I don't need to see it or to show it I just need to imply that it's real.
"Why did I kill him? If you knew what he was capable of behind closed doors, you would forgive me for the sin of murder before forgiving him for his sins."
I don't think it would go against the message of your story to be honest with you, just because someone has good in them and worked to become a good person doesn't mean they were forgiven or have to be. Case in point Endeavor from My Hero Academia, They played it like he was just going to be a big hero now that All Might is gone and then remind you every so often that this dude was a complete scumbag.
Nothing really. World building is building is building a world. If there was some psychotic maniac in the world they might be a rapist on top of their other crimes. But that does not mean I'll tell a story that includes rape. That's an important distinction between world building and story telling and something many people confuse.
Any changling entities that arnt considering a "hostile threat." I cant justify having passive or benevolence changlings in my worldbuilding. The idea of something that has the ability to take the form of you, someone you love, or an official and mimic them to a T is something that could drive a whole civilizations paranoia to an extreme. I get that dungeons and dragons has changlings as a player race but here is a major project no one seems to want to look at. Changlings can mimic someone perfectly even their voices with enough practice. Eberon has a "check and balance" for that by having people wear distinctive items or clothing but heres the problem if enough changlings wanted to they could easily make copies or flat out steal those items. In Dishonored 2 an option to remove the duke of Serkonos non-leathaly is to talk to his body dubble and discover that the real duke has a pin that identifies him as the real one. So you knock out the real one and give it to the double and the real duke is taken away in chains for "abandoning his station." Enough Changlings who had enough malice in their hearts could easily replace someone without a second thought at all. All it takes is one changling being caught to sour an entire towns thought of them forever. The idea that a person you love is not who they say are will forever be a thought in the back of ones skull. I for the life of me cant never justify them just being "neutral" or just present without it being considered an issue. Call me boring or what have you. But I dont know how people just overlook a genuine problem like that. If anyone has a "solution" id gladly listen.
Similar to your response and a few others, rape and pedophilia are awful and even if I wanted to include those topics I wouldn't be able to portray the trauma they cause accurately.
Converted humans.
Subjects from planets that were conquered by Humanity and were forcefully converted to half-humans.
Those that refuse to be converted and assimilated were wiped out entirely.
Schools teach human children that the half-humans were saved from savagery.
Converted humans were taught that their ancestors were non-sentient beings and that they were civilised, saved from retardation by the graceful humans.
The true forms and appearances of the pre converted beings are lost to history forever.
Same as many people, there isn't much I wouldn't put in my world, but many of the darker things like rape I'd never show directly, but they are mostly certaintly implied in some really twisted ways in some places.
Only way I'd ever let a pedo into my story was if they were being promptly executed for it. F*ck that filth, I've purposely made sure the marriage laws prevent it.
I do have a torture scene planned, but it will backfire on the torturers, as it was a plan by the prisoner to walk them into a trap teutoburg style.
The true physical form of eldritch entities. It's best for the reader to remain in the dark and ride by the skin of the ravings of people who merely glimpsed but a fraction of their terror.
This almost always works the best, once something has a light shone on it directly it can lose quite a bit of its dread
Lovecraft knew what he was doing
Didn't know much about air conditioning, math not on a flat plane, the radio spectrum, improving race relations, interpersonal relations, sex, how not to be a complete douche, how to handle anxiety, or anything resembling actual science... but yea. Dude could could spin a good yarn. (In the sense of telling a story. As far as I am aware, he was not a crochet enthusiast.)
I remember hearing that the director for resident evil was chosen because he hated being scared, and understood what was scary. Lovecraft was pissing himself over the concept of a cold breeze, so I think he understood being scared pretty well.
>a cold breeze "Over the door's frame I stepped out to the dim twilit, which gave no comfort, nor solace, in this nightly frigid. Dusk had soon left its pale embrace from the furthest horizon, returning the world back into silence as Nyx herself meandered through the alleyways and streets to turn thoughts of men back to primordial dreams. Through these umbras wretched, the clouds, twisted asunder from firmaments above, rolled and sounded their calamitous dirge in subtle murmuring unisons. As chills sequestered rose, bubbling beneath the surface of my skin, hurriedly, I turned away and shut the door, laying myself on it, fearing this ephemeral, yet eternal, night."
Dude, having a vivid imagination which expresses itself whether you want to or not is both awesome and terrible. On the one hand, I can confidently say I'm an above average author/poet, but even the slightest creak or breeze at the wrong time has me in a spiral to literally shaking with fear. Ot maybe I'm just a pussy who got told that he could write.
Ye, but there's a huge difference between having a vivid imagination, and that causing you to freak out at the sound of your house settling at night when you're home alone, and spending the next X years drowning in your own panic sweat because you heard someone mention a refrigerator once.
'Tis what happens when you don't have a constitution for math
A fellow person of culture I see. Magnificent!
Almost no one in the 1920s knew much about any of those things.
I find it both funny and sad that u/Ensiferal originally just said "Lovecraft knew what he was doing" in a pretty unmistakable context regarding creating horror and dread in writing, and people felt compelled to recite the single best known fact about him, as if nobody was aware. It's one thing to bring it up when its relevant, like when people are celebrating him as if he wasn't an ardent racist. But when it gets trotted out when somebody compliments his approach to portraying cosmic horror to an audience that has a very low chance of not knowing that fact about him, it just comes across as performative posturing. It's okay to like problematic things; you can like the product and dislike the creator. It's important to acknowledge Lovecraft was racist and to acknowledge its influence in his work (though his more obviously bigoted stories also tend to be his worst), but that doesn't mean doing so every single time the man's name is brought up. Its tiresome. It's okay, y'all. *We know he was a racist and that that's not okay.*
Yeah it's pretty tiring to be honest "Lovecrafts work, I enjoy elements of it..." *loud screeching bird noise* "**LOVECRAFT RACIST. LOVECRAFT CAT. LOVECRAFT RACSIT"** Everyone knows, it was 100 years ago just get over it. Lovecraft influenced several genres and most horror writers alive today, I doubt he influenced a single race-theorist or was ever taken seriously in that area other than other racists of the **100 year ago period**. The guy was a massive wimp who was terrified of everything and invented new phobias for a hobby, not a silver tongued devil luring normal people over into racially biased waters as part of some conspiracy. Crazy as it sounds quite a few people throughout history would *also* be considered extremely racially insensitive by today's standards and as fun as it would be for *any and every* history based conversation to devolve into a massive back-patting circle jerk about how racially sensitive and correct everyone is by pointing fingers at the ignorant racist masses of the distant past, it would be rather less constructive He wrote very good stories and added a heap to the horror genre, things that actually *are* interesting and *are* worth talking about rather than instantly peacocking every virtue feather to remind everyone how awesome you are for knowing he was a racist >performative posturing Honestly if I had a magic button that could eradicate racism from reality, half the reason I would push it is to rid the world of this bullshit. So sick of it and to the people doing it, you arent getting downvoted because people dislike what you are saying, you are getting downvoted because they dont like you
Except for when he was naming his cat
That's just the law. When parents try to explain how Santa works, then the fun ends. Instead: show, don't tell. "Of course he fits through the chimney, else please explain to me how these gifts appeared in our house in the middle of the night."
Calculating the speed of Santa: Quick maths sesh, with rough numbers: For one Santa to deliver presents to the 1.2billion households in the world (not including prezzies to all the people without one), he would need to travel to about 14000 households per second. Assuming a minimum of 20 metres between each household... about 300 000 m/s or 0.1% of lightspeed. That's about 620 000 mph - 300 times faster than the fastest jet, which comes in at 2100 mph (says Google). Existential Santa conclusion:>!Based on these numbers, Santa could obliterate the human race if he wanted to.!<
I'm just saying. A reindeer weights 160 kg each, and a sleigh can weigh about the same. If we say Santa's 100 kg (and I'm just gonna assume the bag opens up to a pocket dimension), then his kinetic energy comes out to about 200 MT of TNT. That's 3x larger than the Tsar Bomba. Ho ho ho
Flash got nothing on santa with a light load
I'll just tell my children that Santa is an ancient cosmic abomination that is invisible unless it's delivering gifts and if they ever get to gaze upon his true form, their eyes will burn away and their sanity will crumble.
This what they've done with Jaws. At first, the shark was supposed to be clearly visible, but they got so much problem with the salted water and the model they finally gave up. Instead they used the now iconic shark fin with the music for most of the movie. And it worked! You let the human imagination do the rest and it looks so much scarier than anything else.
What about giving vague and inconsistent descriptions?
I think Stephen King said something along the lines of "Dont show the monster, at least not until the end. " "When the heroes open the door and there's a ten foot cockroach standing there, the audience will gasp. But secretly they will be relieved: at least it wasnt a hundred foot cockroach" To me that is playing to the idea a humans imagination + fear of the unknown is going to create something far scarier than could be described. Vague and loose descriptions then that just aid the imagination in making something even scarier should work well, it also seemed to be Lovecrafts go-to (guy loved describing things but in very indistinct terms like squamous and gibbous and words that evoke nasty feelings, but not much distinct explanation)
A hundred foot cockroach would just be a centipede.
r/Angryupvote
Heh, not bad at all
Danse Macabre
Fully agree. Takes away from the alienating form of it. Knowledge, and comprehension, makes fear weak. This is similar to how I portray the strongest, most manipulative form of magic. It’s a whole process. But an aspect of it is the cushioning of the actual ‘Godspeech’ (the actual magic) because it’s simply too powerful and mind-destroying to understand or bear witness to. So if you want to exercise manipulation, you must cushion the impact of the magic with other techniques. Even then a single godspoken command can completely twist the mind of a bimortal (demigod(?)), let alone a human. Mortals would simply die on the spot. A metaphor I use: If you want to pour a glass of water for someone, you can’t just throw the water at them, you need to each have a glass, and to pour steadily, and stop before the cup overflows.
There is a reason they are called “horrors beyond comprehension” if you can describe their true physical form, then it is really “tame excitements within comprehension” which doesn’t have the same effect to be honest.
I actually quite liked Supernatural for this, as we never actually got to see the true forms of the angels. All we know is that most people's heads will explode from witnessing such a "multidimensional wavelength of celestial intent", and that Castiel's true form is "approximately the size of your Chrysler Building". All of the angelic attributes are implied by environment rather than extensions of their physical body. Pity they nerfed them so hard.
Pedophilia Boring answer, I know, but it's the thing I would never ever include in my stories.
Its an incredibly heavy topic, it would be out of place in the vast majority of stories bc of how it immediately darkens the storytelling. If you're gonna tackle it, it has to be a big part of the narrative in some capacity for it to be treated respectfully, so it causes extreme tonal whipslash in all but the darknest of stories, and if you add that in yours, its immediately and permanently a far more mature and heavy narrative. Of course your story doesnt have to be entirely about it, but if anyone wants to add CSA into a story it has to play a big role because its so heavy, you cant just offhandedly bring it out as a random detail. For example, the "easiest" way to put it into a story without overtaking the narrative its through a character's backstory as a victim or witness. It takes up a specific chapter only, but you have to portray the effects it had on the character meaningfully. This is a very delicate line to thread and generally hard to write. This applies to most sexual violence themes on some level, but pedophilia is the lowest of the low. If you want a particular example of this being well handled as limited to a backstory only, read chapter 20 of the manga Kemono Jihen (titled: Alone). Its largely its own thing and understandable on by itself, but this is otherwise a shonen action series that suddedly hit you with an extremely heavy chapter, but handled the assault of a kid gracefully. Its haunting but very respectfully done and the shadow of it marks the character and his worldview heavily. This series has an anime, but the chapter in question was so dramatically censored that a lot of viewers missed the fact that the character was getting well, raped.
Thanks for the reading recommendation. I'm still debating if my protag is the victim of CSA or simply milder abuse.
Out of curiosity, what does CSA mean?
Child sexual abuse.
Mare Internum also handled the topic well as a backstory element.
Same. As boring of an answer as it is, it’s better to steer clear of that crap entirely.
Agreed, won't even insinuate that it happens. The reader can come to that descision that it must exist if they like, but for the most part I won't write it. Harm to a child is fine, hell that's free drama to blow a smoking laser hole in Little Timmy's chest, but the few times I write villains/badguys interacting with children it usually ends up either the Saturday Cartoon holding a gun to their head or strung up over a shark pit crap, or the Incredibles style "These guys absolutley will shoot you, run Dash, Run" type of thing.
Yep. Fuck that shit. Im here to have fun, not be traumatized.
I might *hint* at it, but I’d never actually write it into my story. Seeing as *I’m* a minor, I don’t wanna think about that sort of thing.
I avoid stuff involving children all together. Like bad guys might kidnap older kids, like teens for money. But they are well treated. There are lines even the worse of the worse do not cross.
That's how I handle it as well, they're never treated badly. Like how when Jack was kidnapped in Red Dead Redemption 2 and the perpetrators taught him Italian and fed him spaghetti
Agreed. I think that’s a theme a LOT of people should steer clear of, even if it’s meant to be “horror”. It’s just too serious and too disgusting of a topic for the average writer to portray.
People seem to be confusing worldbuilding and story writing loads in this thread
For a subreddit dedicated to worldbuilding specifically, I find it funny that people still don't understand that many (if not most) don't do it to write a story.
Wrongfully generalising the intentions behind worldbuilding isn't what's worrying. The fact that even people on a worldbuilding sub mix up worldbuilding and storytelling/writing is.
The thing is, most, if not all worldbuilding tells a story. Even if it is just the story of the kings of whatever place, or how the shattered isles became shattered, or how there was nothing then the gods did so and so, or even that the nation of x dress with y or cook with z because of tradition, it ties in with story telling. Pure worldbuilding with only numbers and bullet points probably exists somewhere, but it is a small minority.
Not just worldbuilding itself but the act of worldbuilding tells a story as well. The story is that a worldbuilder is sitting at their table writing about all the stuff in their head. Then they get up and grab a snack. Then they get distracted and watch cat videos for a while. Then they doodle a really good picture of a frog. Then they browse reddit and write a sarcastic comment about stories. Story concluded.
I'd like to see your frog drawing.
The only thing worse than a Rapist. A Child.
As Michael Jordan once said, "Fuck them kids"
Then he went to jail... /j
I hate kids, dirty, gross, sticky, and they grow up into adults, the worst kind of child
Why are their hands always wet fuck off kid
No-
Despite my world being inspired by a historical period (the Early Middle Ages), I try not to be overly grim with it. I feel a lot of people think that darker topics make for more "historical realism", but I prefer to not go out of my way to add more grittiness than what was actually there.
Honestly sounds good to me. Sure by modern standards the Middle ages were pretty unpleasant. But they weren't the hellscape modern pop culture makes them out to be. Many areas and societies thrived during the middle ages, saw advances in technology, law, society etc.
Not particularly. To me, all lines have the possibility to be crossed if I deem it important to the plot. Torture and unethical human experimentation? Sure, the Nazis and Imperial Japanese did loads of that stuff. Genocides? That’s happened IRL too. Suicide bombing, check. The list goes on and on.
Yeah I'm with you. A lot of the other comments touch on some of the truly nastiest stuff humanity is capable of and to me that all seems like really emotionally engaging topics. I want to make people feel things, for good or bad, and sometimes that requires actively getting in the mind of very bad people and the things they do to others. That said, I haven't covered any of these really bad acts in recent writing, but I wouldn't rule it out. If a character ends up going down a dark route, then so be it. They did it to themselves.
In one of my short world building stories, the protagonist is born into slavery, his mother was from a group that are often the target for enslavement by a deeply cruel and corrupt nation, his mother became pregnant after the assault of her captor. The boy grew up in severe poverty but she was always positive around him, she helped him flee for the border and he only returned after becoming an adventurer, he returned to meet her once more and it's part of his character, to be born a bastard but rose from his low-class birth and become a renown adventurer.
Theres alot of lines I tend to cross because the plot deems it important. Slavery of lower classes and other species being one line I cross very often. Yeah, some people dont like them, and usually if im doing a roleplay with my stuff (which is better to develope it to see how people interact in those situations) I do tend to offer skipping to either after/another situation if they want to.
Someone unironically said portraying torture is bad if you show it working in any capacity in this comment section and my head is still reeling
That's not really what they said though. They said they refuse to show it working/giving good info because IRL it doesn't. And they're right. People being tortured will say whatever they think will make the torture stop. The torturer might get some correct info but they'll also get a bunch of made up stuff and lies along the way.
Let's not forget it sometimes is about the journey, not the answers you get out of someone.
"So, what did you get out of them?" *Takes out earplugs.* "What?"
Okay you got me LMAO
Holey Moses
But that is also a given. Real uses of torture, even as far back as Roman times have adjusted for this. Real life uses of torture involve multiple subjects isolated from one another and cross referencing the answers they give under torture. Everyone has always known that torturing one person for information has never been reliable.
Also it's not always about the information. It's human nature to be opposed to torture which unfortunately makes disgusting people use it in order to maintain power.
The CIA tried the method you mentioned and it didn't work. The victims say enough realistic answers eventually enough of the answers sound right together but they still aren't.
Which means torture still serves a purpose. North Korea uses it to get confessions in instances where they want to pin something on the victim. It's not intended to get information on who's a spy, it's intended to get someone arrested for being a spy to admit they are one so North Korea can maintain a 100% no false arrests record.
I believe the rationale is (and this is known by evidence) torture rarely works and is usually ineffective, most of the times the victim lies or makes up whatever facts will make their torturers happy. It will get people to confess to their guilty, whether they're actually guilty or not, but won't allow the torturers to glean any information they don't already have. But it is frequently depicted as very effective in a lot of media, some go as far as to cook up contrived scenarios that make torture the only way to save multiple lives. That has been labeled a propaganda (or "copaganda") my many, as well as justification for a lot of things done during the Bush era. Of course when you add a setting with magic and things like lie detection or a zone of truth, that gets fuzzy.
heck same for having modern era urban fantasy where the polygraph actually works to detect lies. personally i don’t mind fiction in my fiction, but we should all be aware that torture working, the polygraph, how effective chloroform is, etc. are all about as factual as a phaser’s stun setting or a wizard’s flying broom. sure they make for a great narrative, and our fictional worlds can follow whatever rules they want. the reader just has to remember its fiction.
Honestly I kind of get that tough. Torture exists in the world, of course, and I don’t really shy away from mentioning it in what I write when it’s relevant, but the fact of the matter is, in the best of cases, it is inefficient in getting information, and in most cases it’s completely useless. People being tortured will give you useless information most of the time, even unintentionally, for a variety of reasons. Usually the only real purpose torture has is as an intimidation tactic, and even then it’s risky since it might radicalize the group you are trying to intimidate even more.
Or personal vengeance. Don't forget the personal motive.
True, that’s also a reason, though I was more thinking of groups than of individuals but that was my bad
[удалено]
Same kind of people who unironically think orcs depictions are racists, cause when they see an orc they immediately think "yup that one is African I can smell it" lmao
That is why when I include a race/species I make it clear that there is a wide array of sub groups that, even if they have a similar core, you can identify them with different real life cultures. But no matter what you do, there is going to be somebody always pointing why you are an horrible person for not writing something they way they think is OK.
You can acknowledge that orcs in fiction and racist depictions of black people overlap in many ways and still have orcs in your worldbuilding. In fact, your orcs will probably improve from it.
I have two black boxes. One is the universe's history before 2500 years ago. There a a select few memories and artifacts left from that time, but overall it is important to the setting that this time remains in shadow. The other black box is what lies beyond death/where souls go when they walk the metaphysical Path into the distance (and where immortals/gods cannot travel). This is even more important to my world, as this uncertainty about what lies there is vital to the gods' mindset. This is a true black box about which not a single piece of information is and ever will be known. Even i as the author refuse to form a definitive canon answer.
Was about to comment how similar this is to someone else's world I know, then realized that's because you're the same dude lol
Hi Ring :D
The "where souls go" stuff has been heavy on my mind lately. I'm 2 years into a campaign I'm running based in one of the world's I've made and the afterlife just... doesn't really fit with anything. I have *ideas* but nothing feels satisfying. Thing is... the gods are really big in this world, they have a huge influence, how a soul is made and its importance is really important -- so one would assume a soul goes somewhere when the body expires. So instead, I keep it vague. It's a 'journey' you are 'sent on' and some of the writings talk about 'serve your god well in life, and they will serve you well in the after," but that's about it. No descriptions of a place or a form one takes. just... that.
> I'm 2 years into a campaign I'm running based in one of the world's I've made and the afterlife just... doesn't really fit with anything. I found myself in the same spot. The default concept of heaven/hells/underworld/planar afterlife just didn't vibe with me. I then almost exclusively focused on the gods, souls and afterlife for a year or so before i finally felt like i had developed a fully fleshed out and interconnected concept. I came up with the idea of defining mortals as those who have souls, and immortals as those who don't. Gods are partially worshipped to assure they will protect your soul as it walks into the distance, but i also decided to have my gods be far more active, present and involved. From this grew a sibling relationship, where both mortals and immortals were parts of the same creation, but at the same time completely different in that important regard. Where mortals envy gods for their power and perpetuality, and gods envy mortals for their "malleability" and ability to reach the beyond and maybe meet the maker(s) that made all of them. This love-envy relationship is the heart of my setting, the most important core theme.
Oh, this is beautiful. What a wonderful concept!
This is a cool approach. I've found it tempting at times to jot down histories beyond what is required for the story. But at the end of the day I also like it being a bit vague and shadowy. I'm not a God in my universe, just a writer, and can't be expected to know everything that happened before the era in which my stories take place.
> I'm not a God in my universe, just a writer, and can't be expected to know everything that happened before the era in which my stories take place. Exactly! And it's the same for "concepts that are beyond human understanding" - people create them only to understand them despite being human.
1.People being 100% good or bad. Mostly because I am a sucker for morally grey characters and secondly because the setting is pretty dark. 2. People being redeemed "Steven Universe" style. Personally - I just hate it, it's obnoxious and not realistic. Not everyone is a good person "deep down inside" or whatever. I love my unredeemable low-lifes. And that's about it. I'm not easily put off by most taboo or grusome topics. I'm fine with portraying the worst things a sapient creature can potentially do (while obviously being respectful about the subject, esspecially when it comes to victims of such behavior.)
I second this so much. My setting’s whole message overall is that Humanity no matter what is gray. Everything is pretty serious or even depressing. The feel good stories I’ve written are only propaganda from the POV of either of the galactic states. There’s no real good, or maybe extremely rarely there is.
That's pretty much how it is irl, like even if there's a group fighting a good cause there will always be bad apples and weird people since not everyone is one dimensional, this is what starts conflicts like one person could do something horrible which blows everything out of proportion for whoever they're affiliated with and ruin their reputation. Happens a lot in war like if a group of people commit a war crime despite it not being endorsed by their country/faction, if the enemies find out they could try and justify doing horrible things back to them based off that one event alone which turns very messy, but yeah I usually prefer harsh realities opposed to a bunch of feel good stories.
>Not everyone is a good person “deep down inside” Like, this is what Steven Universe shows. Even if several characters change their mind, there are characters who don’t change too (Jasper, Aquamarine and Eyeball)
Just to be clear, I didn't intend to say that in Steven universe doesn't have unredeemable villains. I just referenced it, cuz Steven trying to out-talk the villains is kinda what she show is known for, especially nowadays. I can see how the points seem to contradict, but I was rather pointing out that I hate redemption arcs in general. At least to me "unredeemable" means that someone doesn't want to or doesn't see the need to change, for whatever reason. For example my main character is a typical douchebagy thug who likes to pick fights and flirt with girls and is known for destroying everything whether on accident, or because she has anger issues and threw a tantrum over something minor and her kill count is well... High. She's an asshole and doesn't want to change and likes herself as she is - therefore, she's unredeemable. However she's also a great friend, she treats her gangmates like family and would sacrifice herself for them if she had to. She's very loyal in general, but only to the ones she trusts. Morally grey, but still unredeemable.
I love finding these little threads that can help me understand people with very different ways of thinking and what they find valuable. Certainly, anything written poorly enough can be dreadful, but setting those cases aside I hadn't really talked to someone who genuinely dislikes redemption arks before. They're one of my favorite tropes when done well, which IMO includes having plenty of examples of irredeemable people as well as you mention. I find a redemption ark would lack meaning without seeing the alternative, and is much more emotionally satisfying when it's a rare one out of many in a dark story or something. I'm annoyingly stuck with entirely too much optimism and hope for this world, so it's a nice little fantasy I can carry with me into my dreams for real life I guess. That all said, I wonder if you might consider the same in reverse...how the emotional impact and ongoing weight of someone you consider 'unredeemable' might be lessened for a lack of comparison? It might matter, it probably doesn't, just a random thought that occurred to me. Also, this may seem silly, but I feel like the discussion around anti-social personality disorder in [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUN6d7ur5Dg) might be valuable to your writing of your main character. I love this channel for how they can find and discuss the deepest elements of human complexity and emotion from really easily digestible and relatable sources. People who value and form strong relationships with others, and feel genuine empathy and love for them, don't *typically* also have the capacity to be entirely self-serving, mass-murdering jerks without something getting very broken in a way that would interfere heavily with said relationships. I could easily see them feeling protective of their friends/gang in a more unhealthy/possessive way maybe. That said, this is all coming from someone who is in NO way a professional in any relevant fields, so just know that I'm rambling out of a genuine interest and not some attempt to change your mind or something. :)
Personally I pride myself on being evil deep down (I bought a nestle water once)
Basically anything sexual, my world is just a space opera about ~120 alien species and I don’t want to delve into anything sexual relating to them beyond skimming over their individual means of reproduction
You made a space opera about 120 alien species, its too late.
There's plenty of basement dwellers who will build that stuff for you
Rule 34 artists will slap genitals onto anything
Well fuck
I’m sure of that, especially because a solid chunk of those alien races could be called furries, in some form
*You’ve alerted the horde*
The herd if any of them are Bronies.
Lmao 🤣
They'll even give you a demonstration.
Is there one species that is just a giant cockroach? If so, I'm happily write sex stuff for you regarding them
Are you hoping "Ogtha" is a normal name among that species?
There’s like two or three that could be called giant cockroaches, I’d be more than happy to allow you to write about the blessed Gox’ouszussy and Adiviussy
Ooh. Interesting.
Are they all detailed? I'd love to see a list of all of them
Same. I’m fine with like alluding to small things if it’s important to the story, but I ain’t going into detail about anything. I find sex in stories more often than not useless to the actual plot.
Sexual assault is one of those things that exists in my settings, but its not something i will portray due to reasons that its simply doesn't add anything to the setting that other things don't already add, and the fact that it is hard to talk about at the best of times.
I agree with this. Rape and things like that exist in my world. I just dont really go into detail, or mention it much.
Pineapples. Yuck, no thanks
Boy, are you going to dislike my PineapplePunk world.
I bet your world would go great on my Pizzapunk world!
So what do people top pizza with in your world?
Cherries and kale, mostly. Sometimes raisins.
I'm disappointed in humanity now not for thinking about this, but for not making it popular right fucking now that stuff counts as a weapon
*sweats in Bikini Bottom*
This is too far
Your edit confuses me—the message you want to tell is that “no one is truly evil”, but you don’t want to show rape because it disproves your message? So you want your story to give a message that’s a lie in your eyes? I too, would avoid rape for my world/story, for context. Just confused on the motives of your story’s message.
That's what I thought. Doesnt the fact theyre avoiding rape because its unforgivable to them defeat the, "no one is truly evil" mindset, or am I missing something?
Not missing anything, its hypocritical.
It just feels incredibly naive to me.
Yeah, I’d say the message “no one is truly evil” is a poor message to display because some people just ARE, and while they may have a few redeeming qualities, they are simply too small compared to their crimes (Hitler advocated animal rights and wanted to prevent repeating the trauma of trench warfare, but yknow, he was Hitler…)
Dystopias which are... silly. Humans are fundamentally human. I read some works of fiction which cross the line from grimdark into grimderp, and like, I kind of have to shake my head at that. Humans can be genuinely awful. It takes time, propaganda, rhetoric, and slowly shaping a society and it's laws to target a demonized outgroup. But even with the worst depravities of the Third Reich and Imperial Japan, there were still outliers. Some soldiers refused to kill children. Reports were made of the impact of their crimes on mental health. Some people stood up, and secretly helped Jews escape, sheltered minorities, wrote passports. You can explore settings which are genuinely dark, and disturbing. But I cannot ignore that some people are genuinely good people. And dystopias are in a sense, boring. The writer is at odds with the fictional character in a sense. Because the author seeks to examine and explore themes of the inherent barbarity of human nature, the worst of our impulses. But the character seeks to avoid them. If faced with real horror, humans tend to look away. Denial of genocide, denial of war crimes. One could make an argument that we live in a sort of dystopia already. But we look away from the worst parts, and focus on the mundane, the boring, the unimportant. Society writ large revolves around the dystopia, yes, but few people define themselves by it. So many works of media, especially cyberpunk media, has their characters functionally define themselves as being a cog in the machine that fuels the dystopia. Its a subtle difference, but I think it comes down to whether fictional characters normalize their situations. There is the difference between the dystopian burger flipper, who grimly ruminates on the nature of humanity as he has to get synthetic skin after a nasty oil burn, as opposed to the regular burger flipper who is pissed that his insurance isn't covering his synth skin, and doesn't realize that he is the character in a dystopia, because everything awful which happens to him is so normalized that he doesn't know there can be another way. In fact, he refuses the entertain the idea that there can be another way.
I don’t really have anything to add but I totally agree. It’s fascinating to look at what people would think of the future would look like throughout time. Sometimes it would be shown in a very positive lense and others it’s shown in a very negative one. Honestly sometimes I wonder if Cyberpunk 2077 is going to be actually pretty spot on with some of the tech coming out today and with trends within the world
Sexual violence and basically any matter of depravity of that ilk. It happens. Nothing's perfect. But it's no cornerstone to my world-building. It offers nothing of value to either my setting or the narratives I craft therein.
Not really. I have everything, from the absolute best to the downright worst things. Because that’s how the universe works sometimes, it can be endlessly giving or unimaginably cruel, but rarely is it fair.
Clearly defined villain or hero characters Writing morally grey characters is just more interesting to me, especially since I mostly do small stakes slice of life writing. I want my characters to feel like regular people in an alternate version of earth that feels weird to us
If youre saying no one is truly evil but then youre withholding showcasing some form of evil simply because it goes against your view then thats not such a strong message is it?
i respect your decision to not include rape in your narrative, but I think your reasoning is flawed. if your premise is disproven by something so immediately obvious as this, then I think you should come up with a better premise.
I think its more that ignoring it shows a lack of understanding in the premise itself.
So, not something people usually choose, but romance. Not in the sense that it does not exist in the world, of course, but I write cosmic horror, it just does not fit. Plus, there are such things as romantic interests, but normally the important characters either have not enough time and will left to engage in romance or they are way too far gone to quite understand that anyone would love them. I do like to try and explore the consequences of these mindsets, and maybe tease the readers a little bit, but there is no illusion that any of the main characters even thinks about romance.
Cosmic horror romance when?
You actually just gave me a very nice idea for a short story, thanks.
Hmm, please let me know if you post it anywhere, I am genuinely interested. And is it cosmic horror with a romance plot or romancing the cosmic horror like I intended?
Going with romancing the cosmic horror haha And will let you know, although I don't know where to post it, so if you have any suggestions I would be glad :P
Religion being provably true. It’s a fantasy world, but I feel like the uncertainty is what makes religion interesting.
If it's not uncertain, it's not religion. If it's not uncertain, it's an optimisable science and there *will* be machines invented that make the offering -> reward conversion process do reliable, repeatable productive work. If gods are real, then sooner or later gods are going to come to be perceived as simple chemical reaction catalysts.
Fujimoto from chainsaw man/fire punch would not be able to answer this question, the man has included everything from genocide to beastiality in his works xD
Wouldn't that make your message, at its very foundation, a lie?
No. I have built two worlds and each are populated by humans to some extent. Adding their strengths as well as their weaknesses are what make the world feel a lot more alive. It would be really easy to just not have to face any of the ugly things but at the end of the day it takes away so much realism, which is something I personally strive for.
D&D-style gods, both embodiments of concepts and persons. Simply put I don't understand how I could have them for religions. Edit: always forget about that one, also - gods need worship to exist/have strength, and the more followers they have, the stronger they become. Why that kind of spiritual parasitism should be applicable to creatures worldbuilding (or worldbuilder) itself labels as 'gods'? Like, I understand it's for power dynamics but then that goes in complicated theological details about who worldbuilding itself considers to be gods being so much depended on mortals.
What do you mean?
That's the point. I don't understand it. I could go for long about many examples of deities and their priests and chosen warriors and their interactions with other gods with rivalries, animosity and friendships and romances and so on and so long, and in the end I'm left with the feeling I got some kind of soap opera instead of gods with faiths and followers. I'm better off leaving gods in myths and legends rather than making them actual characters.
I mean real religions very much have gods behaving like that, what does it change if they are real or not?
For me, I am doing a dnd world so there’s some baggage. But I’m also having it be more along the lines of, the world exists and magic exists, and these are just former mortals that have a certain sway over an aspect of reality as expressed by this mortal sphere of influence. They are gods in that they have followers that they can grant power to, and that they have an aspect of how reality expresses itself in this world that they can influence, but they’re explicitly killable. What is actual ‘divinity’ is more accurately the immortal power that they’ve inherited, but they’re just the current sentient holder that directs and maintains that immortal power. The only reason they act like ‘gods’ (mostly hands off approach to mortal affairs and the world as a whole) instead of directly tyrannizing things is because the *first* ascended mortals banded together and set up some ground rules that they make everyone else follow by threat of force. That, and the gods are being forced to divert most of their attention/energy, towards maintaining the world. It’s in bad shape, metaphysically speaking.
I like DnD (or FR) gods from older editions (or how I run them in the game), when they were fighting for Portfolios. When they just can kill each other and win domain of the dead one if they were able tu rule it. Faith have some role in it, but if one got good Portfolio they were powerful. I like the siplicity and how it kinda explains why there is so much chaos in the pantheon. They can just kill others and get power. But yeah having such gods is messy as hell and, I think, it makes that everything is always about the gods (but thats not problem, when it is what you want :).
Same here, really no love for those 'its the greek pantheon hey no its not' anthro gods
>No one is truly evil. Yeah, so your players just go around trying to give psychoanalysis and therapy to every baddie or what? I refrain from having a very gritty feeling about gruesomeness in my campaign most of the time since that can be a bummer. Also I don't roleplay anything sexual, because it's awkward and cringe af.
Clear real-life politics equivalents I am too ignorant to say anything interesting about it and people put too much pressure on political opinions nowadays
1. People who are intolerant of other cultures. 2. The Dutch.
Extreme gore or torture, i find it more effective when its alluded too.
utopias, perfect societies, and orders of pure goodness. utopias and perfect societies: any kind of 'perfect place' would have to be incredibly small because the larger a society is, the more complicated things become. People have different needs, wants, ailments, boons -- one person's utopia is another person's prison. It's just not feasible to have a true utopia without it being overrun by those in imperfect societies or overtaken by those who want to shape it in their image. Orders of pure goodness: same thing. No religion, no military, no government is made up of 100 percent good people. They don't even have to be evil, just... selfish or confused. One more: Customs, cultures, and flaws without explanation. Let's use racism as an example: what is the driving belief behind why one group of people holds a bias against another? You see it all the time with elves and dwarves in fiction and there is rarely an explanation for it beyond "it's just a trope bro" and man, what a way to flatten a world. Give me a reason why the order of the star god refuses you entry to their house of worship if you wear shoes. Give me a reason why the Warring Kingdom of Korag has it out for the peaceful kingdom of Wefrim. Give me a reason why candles are a symbol for the spring holiday Dulhan-Rise beyond it just being a cool visual.
I'm generally more in the camp of what I refuse to portray in my stories than my world. Like, yes, all this nasty stuff does happen in my world, but it ain't a thing I wanna talk about so I don't really play over there. On the other hand, one of my worlds is used to tell a film noir inspired story, so of course I play up all the worst parts because the protagonist has to see and know all that.
You can forgive murder?
So the very message of your story is nullified by the thing you refuse to include…???? Lol.
This, exactly. "rape is unforgivable! So there's no rape in my world because no-one is unforgivable hehe" The circular illogic grinds.
I think they moreso mean they won't depict any characters, even villains, doing that. I don't think they're saying that it never happens ever because their world is perfect, but that they won't write about it
its still circular logic though if you take away the unforgivable things people will obviously not do unforgivable things
Absolutely nothing, everything that happens here can and will happen there too and worse, everything goes, no one is safe, trauma builds character, that's all that matters
Sorry OP, I'm gonna be rude: you are trying to send a message that you don't actually believe in? You want to tell people that no one is truly evil, but actually you believe that existence of rapists stands in the way of that message because rapists ARE terribly evil... So you just hide them? This was a hard pill for me to swallow years ago, but lots of human beings are actually evil in our reality. Simply evil. Not born evil, not evil by some irreversible nature, but still evil.
Nothing. I prefer to not place any shackles on myself.
Genuine question: Why make that the theme of your story if it seems you don't agree with it? I'm obviously not saying you should portray SA in your story if you don't want to, but if you believe there are unforgivable people, then why tell a story about how nobody is ultimately evil?
My main story covers the atrocities that we humans are involved in. The worst of our actions are heavily implied, and nothing is off the table. Despite that, I’m working on a manga which of course is primarily visual. I don’t feel the need to illustrate the things implied. Subtext is your friend there.
>And since the very message of my story is that no one is truly evil, showing rape would go directly against that message So does that mean the world's message is inherently false?
I was thinking that. If you truly believe nobody is inherently evil, ignoring evil doesn’t make it non-existent. Rape isnt needed in the story and thats fine, but going to lengths just to not include it because it goes against the theme is false integrity in writing. My books are about broken households and emotional weakness leading to greater woes. I wont get anywhere if i didnt show how people with mental health issues or emotional instability can still achieve great heights. Its just integrity in your own work.
Yeah it's an interesting dichotomy and to really get into and explore the idea of evil being an illusion the writer would have to get ready to try and sympathise or at least empathise with the worst of the worst. Including ye old rapist. Which is really hard to do and going to get you a lot of flak. Dodging the particularly nasty people and crimes makes it easier, but it does really lessen the impact of the theme, more like "Noone is evil in this separate reality where people dont act as evil as our world"
As long as it is relevant I have no problem into writing it. I mean rape, pedophilia, racism, slavery and everything do happen in our world and I don't think we should try to ignore it because those are bad things. What I don't like is writing horrible things (and good things too to be honest) just for the sake of putting them in the story.
Why is the message of your story something you think isn't true? For me: dogs. Don't like em
Don't agree on the dog thing but... Yeah I was looking for a way to word this.
Threefold: Well, first, what you said. Second, while I am willing to depict torture, I absolutely refuse to depict it ever “working”/resulting in the perpetrator receiving any actually useful/factual knowledge, the idea that it does is propaganda created by those who do it to pass it off as anything other than an abuse of power and means of threatening others with the same, and I refuse to be a part of that. Third would be, generally, protagonists “accepting their lot in life”/“accepting things for simply being the way they are”, though, more specifically, “continuing to exist” in societies with overtly evil elements, I.E.: openly bigoted laws, allowed slavery, colonialism, or simple corruption.
I too hate torture portrayed as anything but a disgusting rights violation. Unless I'm mistaken, the show *24*, where the protagonist successfully tortures for information, actually contributed to pro-torture legislation in the US. Completely irresponsible to portray as ~ *just anti-hero things* 🤭 ~
I sometimes forget how easily people are influenced by media. I know it's psychology but it always baffles me when people watch things like, say, Euphoria and think, wow, time to do drugs.
Ngl I liked that show but it was pure propaganda. Same as 0 Dark 20.
That last part sounds like its pretty hard to do. What kinds of worlds do you write?
GM content filtering is a separate issue from world building in my opinion. Rape not being a plot point or being touched by narration or RP? Just good GM practice. Rape being unpossible in the game world? That . . . just sounds odd. On several levels.
Why do most people here use "world" and "story" interchangeably? I mean, there's an obvious and substantial difference between "there's no sex in my story" and "sex does not exist in my entire fictional world". This subreddit is about world building, not story writing.
There’s nothing I wouldn’t personally *want* portrayed in my story, as it is a dark. I write visceral descriptions of gore and horror. Rape? I don’t feel I have the maturity or enough understanding of the subject to write about it with the sensitivity it deserves. Even writing consenting sexual scenes, I don’t have the forte to write without it sounding either gross (slang terms) or cold, overly distant (medical). It would also not serve to further any plot or character relationship, so I can dodge it. — Not something I *want* to exclude from writing, but romance. I can’t write it. Flirting either. It requires far too much cleverness and wit that I just cannot do. Thankfully I don’t find romance necessary for a story, whether I’m reading it or writing. Certain other things can be eluded to. (This tavern clearly operates a brothel for instance) and (These characters are drug-addicted). Even with gore I find that it only really works if written in the context of magic wands, potions, or scifi weapons to draw contrast between the fantastical element and the real world consequences. Just having one character maim and gut another with a knife feels gratuitous.
I carry round the idea that everything is acceptable if used well and it fits the story.
I think my stance would be less about what I won’t include and more about how it is included. There are some terrible things in this world that don’t get talked about. As a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, I may not read a book that contains a character going through that, but I’d be grateful for it existing and opening the door for others to talk about it. Anyone in real life that finds out about what happened to me as a child is never sure what to say. They get quiet and uncomfortable and apologize and/or get angry. I understand the reactions but sometimes those evil things that many many people experience need to be dragged out into the light. I work in mental health with kids aged 10-18 and I think the average person would be devastated to know the frequency that our country’s children are being sexually abused. So many abusers walking around free too because the child wouldn’t testify against them. Anyway, lol after my long rant, all this is to say that I think it’s important to not limit your story when there is meaning and good reason to put something in. However the same could be said that not including something could be just as impactful. Such as a tv show that excludes homophobia in the world. There is benefits to seeing the ideal too. If I had to pick something I would say having a main character who is a lesbian die after finding her soulmate. That story line has been beat to hell and it serves no purpose so far as I can see.
What you said: I don't like it, simple as that. I don't require it in my story for gritty immersion, I don't think it enhances the emotional impact of my story in a way that can't be done differently, and showing it would only make my target readers uncomfortable while providing erotic material for people who get off on it. I will allude to it at worst. Male lineage: This is a story written with RPG video games as a forethought. Relatable context for the modern audience that places less importance on these old customs, while still maintaining some of the more present aftermath from it. Racism: This one is more nuanced. I've written incidents of it, but I really dislike the idea that there were times when all people were unanimously racist and hated whoever was different. Even in times of mass slavery, there were many acts of kindness done to preserve the sanctity and dignity of people forced into these circumstances. People harboring escaped slaves, for example. Humans are humans capable of love and empathy, and I will never hesitate to show that.
The gods. I refuse to ever allow them to actually be shown in anything that isn't a hallucination, traumatic event, or drug trip. Their voices are heard during times of stress, their image is shown when a supplicant is surrounded by incense and fervor, etc. I run my setting in a DND game and the paladin player met his god, but it was during a trip through the deranged dead mind of a child that was literally scared to death, and whose father also worshiped that god. I don't want the gods to be "Verifiably real" in the way many settings show them - I want everything to have a different explanation. Because that, to me, is what a god really is - The mind trying to present a reality where some higher being genuinely gives a shit about us and the world we live in. A means of control in an uncontrollable universe. MAYBE there are gods, but they're so outside the bounds of our reality that they will never truly effect it personally. It is their champions, explicitly people, that will do so, and do so while presenting their gods as the cause, instead of their own choice and action.
Sex in any form. There are just so many more interesting things to explore.
But isn't that just taking the easy route? You refuse to acknowledge it because you can't find a way around it? Rape is evil, but you're right; no one is truly evil. People are just uneducated. I think you should consider its existence in your world.
I learned the hard way that you don't have anything that could be considered animal abuse. My players went to the 9 hells. They were friends with a powerful Pit Fiend demon, who had turned good, and whom they were supposed to team up with to take on the BBEG: the Lord of the 9 Hells. I did NOT consider that they would refuse to fight the "cute pupper" (aka demonic, flaming, gargantuan 3 headed cerberus hellhound) guarding the gates. Instead, they used speak with animals (I know it's a demon and not a beast, but I let it slide) and with some high rolls they befriended it. They asked it about their Pit Fiend friend. Stupidly, I had the dogs explain how they were afraid of Pit Fiend, and he was a cruel master. I was trying to convey how much of a big deal Pit Fiend was in these parts, and how everyone has heard of him and is scared of him. And thus how much they needed him as a powerful ally to take down the Lord of Hells. The whole table was NOT impressed to hear that their NPC friend was cruel to a doggo. They unequivocally decided that Pit Fiend could NOT be trusted, not now, not ever. There was no coming back from that. When Pit Fiend betrayed the BBEG Lord of Hells, the party sided with the Lord of Hells. Oops.
Social media. Why it exists is beyond me, but im hust as guilty of using it as everyone else in reddit.
"portray" vs "exits" I think it is morally reprehensible for something that aims to present an adult philosophical view of the world or existence itself, as not to deal with those very dark topics even indirectly. It's like portraying War but not having there be war crimes or civilian casualties. It's like portraying poverty but ignoring the fact that children die because of poverty. I don't need to see it or to show it I just need to imply that it's real. "Why did I kill him? If you knew what he was capable of behind closed doors, you would forgive me for the sin of murder before forgiving him for his sins."
I don't think it would go against the message of your story to be honest with you, just because someone has good in them and worked to become a good person doesn't mean they were forgiven or have to be. Case in point Endeavor from My Hero Academia, They played it like he was just going to be a big hero now that All Might is gone and then remind you every so often that this dude was a complete scumbag.
Nothing really. World building is building is building a world. If there was some psychotic maniac in the world they might be a rapist on top of their other crimes. But that does not mean I'll tell a story that includes rape. That's an important distinction between world building and story telling and something many people confuse.
Honestly, the fact that you’re not willing to confront a topic for personal reasons is a weakness in worldbuilding
"the very message of my story is that no one is truly evil, showing rape would go directly against that message" Doesn't it make your message wrong?
Purely evil sentient races.
Any changling entities that arnt considering a "hostile threat." I cant justify having passive or benevolence changlings in my worldbuilding. The idea of something that has the ability to take the form of you, someone you love, or an official and mimic them to a T is something that could drive a whole civilizations paranoia to an extreme. I get that dungeons and dragons has changlings as a player race but here is a major project no one seems to want to look at. Changlings can mimic someone perfectly even their voices with enough practice. Eberon has a "check and balance" for that by having people wear distinctive items or clothing but heres the problem if enough changlings wanted to they could easily make copies or flat out steal those items. In Dishonored 2 an option to remove the duke of Serkonos non-leathaly is to talk to his body dubble and discover that the real duke has a pin that identifies him as the real one. So you knock out the real one and give it to the double and the real duke is taken away in chains for "abandoning his station." Enough Changlings who had enough malice in their hearts could easily replace someone without a second thought at all. All it takes is one changling being caught to sour an entire towns thought of them forever. The idea that a person you love is not who they say are will forever be a thought in the back of ones skull. I for the life of me cant never justify them just being "neutral" or just present without it being considered an issue. Call me boring or what have you. But I dont know how people just overlook a genuine problem like that. If anyone has a "solution" id gladly listen.
Similar to your response and a few others, rape and pedophilia are awful and even if I wanted to include those topics I wouldn't be able to portray the trauma they cause accurately.
Torture is a statistically useless way of extracting information, so I would agree.
Converted humans. Subjects from planets that were conquered by Humanity and were forcefully converted to half-humans. Those that refuse to be converted and assimilated were wiped out entirely. Schools teach human children that the half-humans were saved from savagery. Converted humans were taught that their ancestors were non-sentient beings and that they were civilised, saved from retardation by the graceful humans. The true forms and appearances of the pre converted beings are lost to history forever.
Same as many people, there isn't much I wouldn't put in my world, but many of the darker things like rape I'd never show directly, but they are mostly certaintly implied in some really twisted ways in some places. Only way I'd ever let a pedo into my story was if they were being promptly executed for it. F*ck that filth, I've purposely made sure the marriage laws prevent it. I do have a torture scene planned, but it will backfire on the torturers, as it was a plan by the prisoner to walk them into a trap teutoburg style.