• A new LGBTQ+ forum is now being trialed and there have been changes made to the Support and Advice forum. To read more about these updates, click here.
  • Hey Trainers! Be sure to check out Corsola Beach, our newest section on the forums, in partnership with our friends at Corsola Cove! At the Beach, you can discuss the competitive side of the games, post your favorite Pokemon memes, and connect with other Pokemon creators!
  • Due to the recent changes with Twitter's API, it is no longer possible for Bulbagarden forum users to login via their Twitter account. If you signed up to Bulbagarden via Twitter and do not have another way to login, please contact us here with your Twitter username so that we can get you sorted.

POPULAR: Simple Questions, Simple Answers

A government could be anything, depending on the circumstances of the society around it. When I was doing some worldbuilding for a space exploration sci-fi, I threw the conventional rulebook for government that we understand on earth out the window and came up with wacky things like technocracies, a slaveholder government (where the senator with the most enslaved workers holds the most power), a world ruled by a government hivemind that's hooked up to computers, etc.

While we don't have a major government that's based strictly on appearance here on Earth, that doesn't mean it couldn't exist somewhere. Actually, you might even be able to argue that a cheerleading squad fits your description, as there can be a chain of command in such a little group, even if it is inconsequential.
 
I keep imagining stories set in fantastical worlds inhabited entirely by fictional species, then get bored of them because I think they're too boring, only to re-use previously-designed species and try again. My main problem is that since this is fantasy, and my creature designs are inspired by Pokémon, these creatures should logically have powers, but I can't think of many.
 
Is there such thing as a government "rule by the beautiful"?

In my pmd story, Im thinking of writing about a (matriarchal) tribe of Lopunny where you gain more power the more beautiful you are.

Well, a form of government of "rule by the beautiful", or in the more general sense, "rule by fine quality" would be a kallocracy. As @Eliza Prescott describes, a cheerleading group more or less approaches this concept; actual "form of rule" is a bit more complicated than that as it strongly relies on the ability to give orders to effective people, as well as accountability and transferability of ruling, for example, which are among the systemic reasons why similar forms of governments such as hierocracies (rule by those "assigned by gods") or democracies (rule by popular appointment) tend to break when they do. Well, down the line that's what the modern concept of beauty is - a social construct for summarizing popular vote. Now if you are going for a more classical model of beauty, where it is a concept built and imprinted on an individual, then it becomes similar to forms of government such as plutocracies (rule by wealth) and teleocracies (rule by assignment of a task, the simplest modern example a military junta), and face similar flaws as those.

As a general idea, I feel a form of rule by beauty would share several structural aspects with rules based on popular vote, as someone has to confirm that you are, or not, beautiful; most importantly, you mention right to breed. Adding "right to breed" to either of those is, in large enough societies, the main spice to spur a revolt; in small enough societies, it leads instead to crippling specialization which if tied to blood (if beauty is "internal") will be very hard to get out of without a temporary stage such as a rule by committee. Down the line, your Lopunny ruler can not up and say "I'm the most beautiful" and claim rule like a hierarch can, but instead must be able to make a claim that is supported by the population and is accountable, such as "I won all Beauty Contests last year". Meaning they have to be able to give something in exchange for the vote.

...This starts getting into the field of political meta theory, so given I don't really know much of that I will stop here. Basically, the idea is good, sounds interesting, and doesn't sound like something that would be unlikely or unworkable.

I keep imagining stories set in fantastical worlds inhabited entirely by fictional species, then get bored of them because I think they're too boring, only to re-use previously-designed species and try again. My main problem is that since this is fantasy, and my creature designs are inspired by Pokémon, these creatures should logically have powers, but I can't think of many.
I'd say stop thinking logically about powers, and think about traits. While the canon does make some attempts to treat Pokémon as "magical" in-universe, most of what we can see treats what we perceive as their powers as stuff of the utmost normality for their world. Heck, I'd say many Pokémon are pretty run poor and common power-wise considering what we have seen can be done in the Pokémon world... I mean, there are plants, or plant-like organisms, that can copy and reflect reality with varied stimulu - the weird crystal plants in the Lucario movie. That's arguably better than a hologram and to my knowledge something that not even Celebi can do.

So, basically, think of your Pokémon, or your totally-not-Pokémon sci/fantasy creatures, as creatures that have to have lived and evolved in a world; think of what was needed for that, and think of how they would benefit or harm from their own evolution. Once you have a grasp of what sounds "normal", you''ll be able to compare to the larger scope of your setting and realize what kinds of things would count as "super".

On my own end, I'm working on worldbuilding for my Pokémon 'verse, trying to differentiate what Pokémon and their cultures believe about the universe (eg.: their Creation Myths) versus how events actually went like - what is the term for that? Cosmogony? Cosmogenesis? Could use a Helping Hand on that one. But what I am most interested ATM is figuring out where do humans come in the mix. For those of you in the know: what is known of the origin of Humans in the Pokémon canons? I know Arceus is said to have created the Pokémon world, but is He, or any other Legendary, stated to have created humans? Not to mention the IRL-like trees and plants we see in the Pokémon world.
 
@solovino I recently had a wave of inspiration for a story set in another world afflicted with minimal light, where the creatures don't need to follow real-world biological principles because it's "surrealism". I came up with a species of dragonoids which started living in caves, and lost the ability to fly, when the darkness came. Oh, and they're less Pokémon-ish than the ideas I had a few weeks ago.

(I also don't really know how to reply to a long comment...)
 
@solovino Indeed, cosmogony is the word you're looking for. I don't believe there's any canonical reference to the origin of humans, which may be because there's more than enough real life material to work off of for that and no one wants to see super in-depth religious aspects portrayed in a kid's game. You could use Arceus and/or legendaries as the creators of mankind, or use real life adaptations instead. This is a topic the Written Word has discussed in the cliche thread several times over if you're interested. The general consensus seems to be that the idea of legendaries being called gods doesn't hold much water.

@Nitro Indigo Do you mean quoting long messages or just responding in general?
 
@diamondpearl876 Responding in general.
I already came up with a species of dragon-likes which lost the ability to fly, and a character made of multilingual puns called the Mother of the Sea, who looks like a horse.

Seems to me you're doing well so far.

Also, your former description immediately made me think of salamence, since bagon long to learn to fly.
 
Also, your former description immediately made me think of salamence, since bagon long to learn to fly.
Actually, they lost the ability to fly because when the world "lost its sky" (ie: total darkness), all flying creatures lost the will to fly. The dragon-likes are called bonfliers, which started living in caves, and are fire-themed because I thought having dark-coloured cave dwellers was boring. And so they don't freeze to death.
 
Would having a third person prologue, but then having the rest of the story be in first person be a stretch or kind of silly? Or can it work?
 
Would having a third person prologue, but then having the rest of the story be in first person be a stretch or kind of silly? Or can it work?
The closest thing I can think of is One Wish, where the prologue is from a different third-person-limited perspective to the rest of the story.
 
I've been having difficulty with the current chapter of Eight Easy Steps I'm working on. It's a conversation between four people, and I am trying to convey their emotions and facial expressions but I feel as though I am just repeating myself a lot and using mild variations of the same descriptions for describing every eye twitch or glance away from the perspective character. It's bogging down the chapter and I would appreciate some help: does anyone know any good articles or places to look for help on this, or would anyone mind sharing their method for describing facial expressions and that type of thing?
 
No links at hand, but maybe this:
Is it possible to group facial expressions together? Like, multiple characters having a similar reaction to something, and portray it with a variation of "[x] made their rounds across the table" or something?

Im making the switch to first person, where the expression of emotion is handled well by internal monologue, but in 3rd person, I think making it simpler to an extent could work.
Or in another way: Are all these different reactions and facial expressions needed? Do they serve a purpose plotwise, like character X reacting to a proposal in a suspicious way, or does the description add to the atmosphere of the scene? If its the former, yea, they have to be included, but if its the latter, I think you have more leeway to not be exactly accurate.
 
I agree with Lyca. Your main two options are to group and to cut. I like to attach information about posture and facial expressions onto dialogue tags. Other than that, unless a particular reaction is exceptional in some way, there's little reason to describe it until the character talks again. Group conversations can be tricky, though. Do what you can to slim down, and then keep in mind that you're probably more likely to find fault with it than your readers. If you want, I can beta read it for you once you've done what you can, just to see if it's really a noticeable issue.
 
Thanks for the tips, and for the offer @AetherX. I think I am possibly reading too much into it, but it can be tricky to avoid the issues. And @diamondpearl876 I guess I was referring to reactions in general, but it's one of those things where I don't want to load every bit of dialogue with a reaction but I also don't want to avoid them completely, otherwise it is just a stream of dialogue. And since people feel the same way throughout, there is only so much scoffing and such characters can do XD
 
I've struggled with this for a long time, and as it has become quite severe, eh, why not ask for advice:
I'm terrible when it comes to actually getting to write, like I need a spark for it to happen at all. When Im preoccupied wiith other things (like now), draining my mental energy, it makes it really hard to do anything at all, and I'd like to, just for a distraction.

Do you have any techniques to get yourself into a writing mood?
 
Writing at least something everyday is my main method. Habit is a good way of killing off the kind of small distractions that just boil down to petty procrastination. It also helps to try and be in the mindset of thinking of the challenge itself as the fun - because sometimes writing will feel like work. Conversely it doesn't put pressure on any one day to be writing day.
 
I've struggled with this for a long time, and as it has become quite severe, eh, why not ask for advice:
I'm terrible when it comes to actually getting to write, like I need a spark for it to happen at all. When Im preoccupied wiith other things (like now), draining my mental energy, it makes it really hard to do anything at all, and I'd like to, just for a distraction.

Do you have any techniques to get yourself into a writing mood?
How To Break Your Creative Blocks - Springhole.net
 
Please note: The thread is from 2 years ago.
Please take the age of this thread into consideration in writing your reply. Depending on what exactly you wanted to say, you may want to consider if it would be better to post a new thread instead.
Back
Top Bottom