HOME | DD

valhaia In reply to ztlawton [2016-02-13 01:46:29 +0000 UTC]

Oh wow thank you!! I'm decent with basic HTML but I didn't see an option to "use it" like most websites have. 

Hopefully this works! It did!!!!

I'm thinking this would be the northern sky or along the equator.  
I definitely think there are other planets in this solar system but honestly it's not something I've sat down and thought too much about. I did decide on a F9V for their sun type, and that it takes their planet about 468 days to rotate the sun with a 32-hour day. 
I'm not super science literate but I do want my world to feel real. 

Thank you so much by the way!! And if you're around I would love to pick your brain about worldbuilding!!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ztlawton In reply to valhaia [2016-02-13 14:16:10 +0000 UTC]

I'm only too happy to talk, if you have questions! If I don't know the answer, I'll try and find it out. The only problem I have is shutting up once I get going.

I apologize in advance for this, but I do have a minor quibble with word choice - technically, motion around an internal axis (day/night cycle) is "rotation", while motion around an external axis or object (yearly cycle) is "revolution". The rotation and revolution combine to produce the actual length of day. For instance, Earth's rotational period (sidereal day) is about 23 hours and 56 minutes. But because it is also revolving at the same time, it takes four extra minutes for the sun to appear to come back to where it started, producing our 24 hour solar day. (Image )

One interesting note is that because Earth's rotation and revolution are both in the same direction (counter-clockwise, if looking at the Solar System from above the North Pole), our sidereal day is shorter than our solar day. But if one motion happened to be in the opposite direction of the other, the sidereal day would be longer.

Other, more interesting effects: our moon's periods of revolution and rotation are the same, so Earth only ever sees one side of it; if a planet were like this, one half would always be in daylight and the other half would always be in night. And on Mercury, one solar day lasts two years - it takes about 88 Earth days for Mercury to orbit the sun once, but it takes 176 Earth days for the sun to return to the same position relative to a point on the surface.

Also, on the subject of planets, almost all Earth cultures have named both their gods and their days after the seven "wanderers" in the sky: Sol, Luna, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, and Venus (the other planets are too dim to see from Earth with the naked eye). Anyone who watched the sky noticed that everything they could see appeared to be fixed, as if glued to a giant dome that rotated overhead - except for the sun, the moon, and these five stars that moved across the sky, sometimes even changing direction. The number seven is important to many different cultures for this exact reason. Egypt, Rome, Babylon all had 7 major dieties. Even the modern week comes from the sky: Sunday (Sun's day), Monday (Moon's Day), Tuesday (Tiw's Day, Norse version of Mars), Wednesday (Woden's Day, a.k.a. Odin, associated with Mercury), Thursday  (Thor's Day, associated with Jupiter), Friday (Frige's Day, Old English version of Venus), and Saturday (Saturn's Day).

Also, out of all the Wanderers visible to humans before the invention of the telescope, only one changes its shape - which is one reason why the moon is often associated with shapeshifters like werewolves.

Anyway, back to your world (sorry for the very long digression ). What about axial tilt? A.k.a. how extreme are the seasons? And does it have a moon of its own (or more than one?)

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

valhaia In reply to ztlawton [2016-02-13 22:31:52 +0000 UTC]

Man you are the best! And don't worry, I have the same problem too, glad I'm not alone.

So correct me if I'm wrong but I have a 468 day revolution and a 32-hour rotation. The image you sent was broken, but I think I get what you're talking about.

I'm glad you mentioned axis tilt because it's something I've been going back and forth on for awhile now. I know the seasons are longer, but no where near the seasons in ASOIAF. I think certain times of the year as the moons get closer/farther away the seasonal weather/climate will hit extremes but honestly I have no clue what I'm talking about. This planet has two moons, Iahaysu and Nizarsca, the former being the largest. I'm not sure how they'll affect the tides or the climate, or even how they orbit the planet and/or each other. I am getting a good grasp on how they effect the different cultures of the world. Also - I'm not sure if it's feasible but I think true "dark nights" would be uncommon. From the light of the two moons I think their nighttime would be slightly lighter than ours. Flora and fauna would obviously be affected by this and I'm just now starting to dabble in that. (Probably the must infeasible thing: I have a town named Duskfell, where as the name suggests, it is almost permanently dusk.)

Now that I'm thinking about it, there will probably be 9+ planets in this solar system. Birth charts are rather important to most cultures in this world. I see it being similar to the Chinese almanac's in a way, where your birth stars and planets decide the un/lucky days of your life, also used for divination purposes etc. I've heard the seven wanderers in the sky but never quite the way you described it. That was very beautiful and inspiring, thank you very much!

I have a religion in my story-verse, which I'm calling Noveam at the moment, where they worship a god with nine incarnations. Yet the Aranian gods/religion predate the Noveam's and most celestial aspects/bodies/constellations were named by them. Even though most of my story takes place in Lemere and focuses on Noveam theology it's important for me as the author to know the other gods (especially as my gypsy-like MC originates from the foothills of Arania.)

I see this planet being only slightly larger than our own, and though there are major differences I'm not scientifically literate enough to know and spot the differences. One thing that I absolutely love about writing is that I'm consistently learning new things. Since I started writing as a kid, a day hasn't gone by where I haven't learned something new.

And I just want to say thank you again for taking time out of your day to reply to me and my rambling story ideas!

Questions:
How do you usually go about worldbuilding? (Always my favorite question to ask other authors.)
In your honest opinion what is more important: characters or plot?
How in depth are your magic systems, if you have them? And, what do you think of multiple magic systems in a single book/series?
Also if there are any questions or anything at all that I can help/give opinion on/brainstorm with I'd be absolutely happy to do so.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ztlawton In reply to valhaia [2016-02-20 16:40:54 +0000 UTC]

Very sorry for the incredibly late reply! I had a paper to work on that kinda ate up all my time.

Anyway, yep! You've got rotation and revolution sorted. I don't know why the link doesn't work for you (it tests fine on my computer), but you could also try this Wikipedia page .

My response to your second paragraph turned out so long I'm going to put it at the end of this reply. I apologize in advance.

With regards to planets and astrology, human cultures on Earth developed astrology long before they had telescopes, so even modern astrology really only uses the five planets that are visible to the unaided eye. If you have magic in your world, they might not need to invent telescopes to see more of the planets; and on a world with more than one moon, the night sky would be brighter, so people might not even be able to see as far as we can on earth. Basically, when you're developing their culture and solar system, you should keep in mind how much of the latter they can see when they're building the former.

If the planet is larger than Earth, it should either have slightly higher gravity (you could do interesting things with that) or lower density (maybe not as much of the heavy elements in the core?).

Answers to your questions:

1) When I set out to do worldbuilding, I usually figure out what questions I have and then start researching answers. A lot of the time, though, I'll just be reading about something for fun, or learning about something in school, or see something at work and say "hey, what if ________?"

2) My favorite stories are all Speculative Fiction (Fantasy, Sci-Fy, Alternate History, et cetera), and the key element in all of those genres is almost always the setting, not the characters or plot. 1984, Tolkien's books, the Star Trek shows - they all have plot and characters, but the plot and the characters are only really are there to show off the universe. Now, obviously you need to have characters that the audience can connect with, to draw them in. And of course you need a plot to keep things moving and bring the characters (and audience) to see new parts of your world.

3) Whenever I create my own magic system, I take a very scientific route - magic obeys the laws of physics just like anything else; it is studied and analyzed and documented and exploited and industrialized; people treat it the same way we treat electricity. But that's just my own story-worlds. When I'm reading a book, as long as their magic obeys the rules the author defines for it, I'll accept anything. If the only rule is "if you can imagine it, you can do it", that's fine. As for multiple magic systems, it's the same way. As long as they're consistent, that can make for very interesting dynamics. Have you read Patricia C. Wrede's Enchanted Forest Chronicles? Magic users include Witches, Fire Witches, Magicians, Sorcerers/Sorceresses, Wizards, Dragons, and the titular Enchanted Forest. Each and every one of those categories has its own very different way of using magic; all of them specialize in different things; all of them have strengths and weaknesses. All the systems of magic follow their own rules, and it makes for a very interesting story world.

And thank you for your offer! I haven't had time to do too much work on my own projects lately, but with any luck that will be changing relatively soon.



Now.
On the subjects of seasons, moons, and units:

For a planet like Earth (stable orbit, stable tilt, one star) the seasons will always be evenly divided - if your world divides their 468-day years into four seasons, each season will be 117 days long (compared to our own 91-day seasons). In a simple system like ours, it is impossible for the seasonal cycle to be noticeably longer than the yearly cycle. I believe the official explanation for the seasons on Westeros is simply "magic", but of course a number of people have looked for scientific reasons for seasons as unusual as those depicted in the books. This io9 article covers some of the more interesting explanations.

Seasons on Earth are caused solely by the tilt of our axis. Going by the Northern Hemisphere, Summer is the time when we are tilted towards the sun and are getting more direct sunlight, while winter is the opposite. This YouTube video , while somewhat dry, does explain things reasonably well.

Now, we care about the angle of the sun because the atmosphere blocks some of the energy from our sun - and the more air that sunlight has to pass through, the less energy we actually get. For example, to reach San Francisco, California at noon on the Summer Solstice, sunlight has to pass through about 62 miles of atmosphere. But at noon on the Winter Solstice that distance is 122 miles, nearly double, which means more of the energy is absorbed or deflected and doesn't reach the ground. Here's a diagram showing the approximate distances and angles involved.

The only effect that our moon has on our seasons is the fact that it stabilizes Earth's axis - just like the wobble of a spinning top, our axis of rotation is itself rotating. This wobble is called "precession ", and without the moon, Earth would probably wobble much more than it already does. Even now, our axis makes a full turn every 25,770 years (so if we didn't adjust our calendars, in about 12,900 years March 21st would be the start of Autumn, not Spring) (also, 2000 years ago we didn't have a North Star - the star existed, but the North Pole was pointing somewhere else).

If the period of precession was the same as the period of revolution (468 days, on your world), there would be no seasons. One pole would always be closer to the sun, and the other would always be farther away. This would also mean that one pole would never have daylight and the other would never have night. A city located on the Arctic or Antarctic Circle, then, could always be in perpetual dusk.

Now, if the period of precession was somewhere between that extreme and Earth's own, the seasonal cycle would depend on the interaction of the precessional and revolutionary cycles, and individual seasons could last as long as (or longer than) the planet's orbital period.

That brings me to the issue of units - specifically, where they come from. All of our units have been refined and standardized based on modern science and technology, but they remain very close to their origins. One "day", as originally defined on Earth, was the time it took for the sun to make a full circle around the world (noon to noon, or sunrise to sunrise, or whatever reference point you wanted to use). That was easy for anybody, anywhere, in any time period, to figure out. A "year" was the time it took for the seasons to come back to where they were (Spring to Spring, Winter to Winter, et cetera). This took longer to see, but every major culture since the invention of farming has figured it out.

But the people who first come up with the idea of a "year" have no concept of "orbits" or "axial tilt" or "precession". They just know that it takes between 350 and 400 days for the seasons to come full circle on Earth. Over centuries of observation, the number gets narrowed down. By the time someone invents the first telescope, the idea of a "year" is so fully ingrained that it doesn't matter what the planet's precession or revolution are - they can make their units more precise, and they can create new units, but they wouldn't redefine existing units to be something completely different.

In a similar vein, our day is divided into 24 hours because the first culture to establish the idea of an "hour" counted in Base Twelve , not Base Ten (unlike most human cultures, they didn't count on their fingers and toes).

The unit called "month" was originally the time it takes for the moon to go through all its phases (the words "month" and "Monday" both come from "moon"). If a planet had more than one moon, it would be harder to establish a moon-based calendar system because of the complicated dynamics involved.

Other things about having more than one moon:

Night will probably be brighter, meaning nighttime animals can use vision more, won't need night vision that is as good as that of Earth animals, and will need better camouflage. Tides will also be much more complex, and - depending on the masses/proximity of the different moons - could be much more drastic than tides on Earth. This would make it difficult for coastal activities (fishing, harbors, ports, et cetera) because anything built for use during the highest tides will be too far away from the water to be used at the lowest tides (and vice versa). There would also likely be much more coastal erosion., meaning beaches would change shape faster, and there would probably be fewer rocky shores.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

valhaia In reply to ztlawton [2016-02-24 02:15:41 +0000 UTC]

I'm sorry for the late reply as well!! My wifi went out for a couple days, and my boss man/neighbor finally came home from the hospital Sunday. 
I just want to thank you again for replying to me with such depth and detail, it really means a lot to me. 

I like what you said about astrology and culture, I'll definitely keep that in mind. I was thinking about having "Lady and Lord Planets" and having the cultures name the days of the week after them. Still just a thought though. 

Though I looked for what would happen if the earth had a higher gravity, I'm not really sure what you meant by interesting things. I read somewhere though, that there's a possibility that humans would be stronger but I might have read that wrong. But I did learn that this planet would be classified as a "Super Earth" yet not a dwarf gas giant. (I suppose some planets could be labeled as both.) 

1.) What if questions are always my favorite, and the ones I start off with too! I truly believe it's one of an author's best tools. 
2.) Although we differ here, (Personally I believe characters are the backbone of every story) I have to admit that some of my favorite stories are all setting-oriented. 
3.) I recently read Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn trilogy and it honestly opened my eyes to "scientific" magic. It's something I've always been interested in myself, I feel like magical limitations are more interesting to write with because you get to be more creative. And for me, with a scientific magic system, there are almost always more limitations than "soft" magic systems. The problem that I've been having with this story are the magic systems. On one hand, some of the "worldly" magic is soft, yet the individual magic I see being hard and almost scientific in ways. I just don't know where to begin. I'm probably just overthinking it. I've never read Wrede's novels, but I have read a few of her essays and blog posts on writing and worldbuilding. 


Even though I still see coastal activities taking place, the coastal erosion could explain why there are more major sky-ports than coastal ones. 

I'm glad you explained the seasons being evenly divided - it makes much more sense to me having it this way than trying to figure something else out. I've already started trying to plan out the calendar. Once things start making sense I might upload something to get some feedback on it. 

I read the precession link you sent but I have to admit that I'm still pretty lost. I never really thought about having one side of the planet in complete darkness and the other in total daylight. Sounds very interesting, and I'm definitely throwing into my writing-idea-bin in my head but it won't work for this world. 

Would you recommend creating the world with precession, axial tilt, and orbits in mind, or do something in between that and some time before the "telescope" was invented? In this world I know there are telescopes, (star-scopes) but I'm just confused on whether on creating a solar or moon-based calendar or day, or whatever. 

Sorry if there's any mistakes or typos there's a lotta family drama going on at the moment and it's pretty hard for me to concentrate, I just want to get this out asap because I finally have wifi again (yay!!) 

I hope you get time to work on your personal projects soon and that your paper came out wonderful!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ztlawton In reply to valhaia [2016-03-03 14:49:02 +0000 UTC]

Thank you! Glad to hear your wi-fi is back up, and well-wishes to your neighbor! Unfortunately I seem to be continuing the trend of late replies, but hopefully things will have calmed down for both of us soon.

On the subject of high-gravity planets (as I understand it):

First off, the basic design of the human body means you probably don't want people to live with gravity higher than 3x that of Earth; even 2x would be uncomfortable. That said, if given enough time, any species will physically adapt to whatever conditions it is placed in (unless the conditions change too quickly and drive it extinct). But the higher the gravity, the stranger things would be.

Compared to life on Earth, anything that is adapted to a world with higher gravity would have several physical differences. On average, bones would be denser, bodies shorter, hearts and lungs bigger, etcetera. There would probably be fewer flying creatures, and those that existed would have proportionally larger wings. Plants, just like people, would be shorter, thicker, sturdier, and less flexible.

Depending on atmospheric density, objects would probably fall faster. Waves on the ocean would be smaller. Mountains would be shorter, and their sides wouldn't be as steep.

There are probably more differences, but I don't know enough to speculate on them.


On the subject of magic:

One thing that I've been thinking about with my own magic system is that humans' brains (and those of any other sentient magic-users) allow much greater potential control over magic, but at the cost of ease-of-use. That is, natural magic just sort of happens as needed, but is mostly big, sweeping effects. People, on the other hand, can create very focused, precise results, but they can only do something they can visualize.

For instance, you can light a fire by adding energy to a piece of wood until it becomes hot enough to ignite - but a physicist could do the same thing without really using any of their own energy by breaking apart one or two atoms and using that energy to start the fire. And if you know atomic theory, you could do transmutation by moving around protons and neutrons and electrons to literally turn lead into gold, or stone into diamond, or diamond into gold. But if you don't know anything about atoms and nuclei and subatomic particles, you couldn't tell your magic what to do with them and thus couldn't perform a transmutation spell.

On the subject of creating the calendar:

Personally, I would say you should decide what parts of the universe are known by whoever creates the calendar, at the time the calendar is first created, and go from there. Is the calendar established by deities who know all about precession and orbits and whatnot? Or by someone who has used magic to find out how the solar system works? Or, as on Earth, by early farmers who see the sky as an upside-down, painted bowl sitting on top of the ground?

Essentially, any culture that relies on farming will develop a calendar on their own, unless one is provided for them, because they need to know when to plant and harvest their crops to get the most food for the least work. Wikipedia's History of Calendars page gives a good overview of some different early calendars, if you want to take inspiration from Earth's history.

As a side note, farming became prominent on Earth around 9500 BCE. The first calendars seem to have developed in places like Egypt and Babylon (both cultures heavily dependent on farming) somewhere around 3000 BCE. Pythagoras first theorized that the world was round, not flat, around 600 BCE, and Aristotle provided empirical evidence that Earth was a sphere by around 330 BCE. The first person to propose a Heliocentric model of the universe (where Earth orbits the Sun) was Aristarchus, some time near 270 BC. The first telescopes weren't invented until 1608 CE.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

valhaia In reply to ztlawton [2016-03-04 20:33:09 +0000 UTC]

Well the wifi started working again and my laptop decides to take a crap!! Thank god I have a wonderful neighbor who's been letting me use his laptop. Hopefully you'll have more time on your hands, as I'm excited to see storyverse things relating to your story!!

Albeit the higher gravity sounds amazing, I don't think it would fit this world. I see things opposite really, larger trees and plant life, and a few more flying creatures than our own world has. (I see griffins being as common as other migratory birds in our world.) It's definitely something I'll stash in the back of my mind for another story though. 

I love the sciencey feel you give your magic, it reminds me of Brandon Sanderson. I've sat and thought about my magic for awhile now, and some of the styles/forms I uploaded on the character sheet, but they're still bugging me. Probably because I don't really know what I want to do with them. I like what you said about sentient magic users, and how the brain allows greater control over magic. I think the issue I'm having is that the magic in of itself is something sentient, so I think I'm struggling with more of a cosmology issue then maybe magic? Who knows, (well hopefully I do lmao) but I hope I get some down time soon so I can really start fleshing out my magic. It's really one of the last steps for me before I can start writing. 

As for the calendars, thank you so much for that link!! It really gave me a lot to think about. I think the first calendar will be created by the latter two sentences of your first paragraph. For some reason I'm loving the idea of magical astronomers working together with magical farmers to create a calendar/almanac. I can't believe telescopes were only invented in 1608. Starscopes are common in my 'verse, so I should probably work out some of the astronomy aspects of my novel. Especially the birth charts.

Anyways, enough of my rambling, I gotta get back to work. And again, I thank you for your wonderful, in-depth replies. I wish there was a way to repay you for all the insight you've given me as I create this world.  

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ztlawton In reply to valhaia [2016-03-05 02:25:11 +0000 UTC]

I hope you can get your laptop fixed! I know what it's like when one quits on you, and replacements are usually so pricey.

If you want to have griffons (or anything even larger, like dragons), lower gravity would be a definite advantage. It would also help if they have at least some innate magical abilities, to improve their lift and/or strength-to-weight ratio. It could be subtle, like making their bones magically light and strong and their muscles magically powerful -- or it could be straight-up, brute-force, could-even-make-a-brick-fly spells. Or something in between! But really, flying is hard to do with unassisted biological methods. The Wandering Albatross has the largest wingspan of any species living today (up to 11 feet across!), but weighs less than 26 pounds (less than 3 jugs of milk) and can't carry very much extra weight.

Speaking of larger trees, I feel like I have to mention this - odds are, unless you live in California, Oregon, Montana, or Wyoming, you have never seen a live, healthy, fully-grown tree. I know I haven't. Trees all over the world used to be far taller, thicker, and straighter than any you will see today. But then humans developed the logging industry. The only trees that survived were those that were stunted, scrawny, scraggly - unsuitable for turning into the huge boards that featured in the construction styles of the time. And because they are the only ones that survived, they are the only ones that reproduced, leading to one of the fastest unintended acts of artificial selection humans have ever caused. This map shows where the US's old-growth forest used to be... and the tiny spots where it remains. Anyway, long story short: even if you don't have lower gravity, the trees will be bigger than any you've ever seen until someone comes up with the idea of industrialized logging.

For magic, if there is some non-corporeal entity (or entities) that people call on to perform spells, you could use that as a basis of establishing the scope and limits of magic that relies on it/them. For one thing, it could be a handy way to explain why someone can cast a spell by saying magic words: they're speaking the magic's language! I can also see some interesting questions, though. Can the magic-creature be captured/restrained? Is it all-seeing? (And if so, is it all seeing all the time, or do you have to ask it to watch something before it will actually pay attention? Could I ask it where my nemesis was last Friday, or would it not know that?). If magic is a living thing, what sustains it? Is the villain trying to starve it - or starving it on accident? Or are the good guys the ones doing the starving?

Now, you mention "cosmology", but unless I'm misunderstanding you I think you might have the wrong word there - cosmology is the study of the origin and development of the universe. Though, if the magic-creature is the remnant/descendant of whoever created the universe your world happens to be within, it might be appropriate. I just want to clarify before I write five paragraphs on the wrong subject.

As for my replies, really, don't mention it! I just really love talking about stuff, and it's nice to have someone who seems interested! I'm very prone to talking people's ears off. It's also nice to be able to put my collection of random trivia to some actual use, of course! Seriously, if you have any kind of question, I will be far too happy to answer to the best of my ability (and if I don't think my ability will suffice, I'll find someone who knows more and ask them).

PS: I talked a little about units in an earlier message, and I'm curious - without looking this up, how many units of length do you know from the American system of measurement (for example, the inch and foot)? I did some research on our units recently, and so far nobody I've asked has known more than four (hint: there are a lot more than four). Also, if you're going to make your own system of units, I'd suggest basing it on the metric system, because the American system is horrible.

EDIT: If you actually do want to create your own system of units, my actual feeling is more complicated than "just base it on metric", and would rely heavily on what exactly you wanted to do with it, but I won't go into that unless it's relevant.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

valhaia In reply to ztlawton [2016-03-08 05:47:34 +0000 UTC]

OKAY - I finally have time to reply to this. 

I really hope I can get it fixed as well, I have a lot of writing on there that I would be crushed to lose. And yes, I'll have to wait months to save up just for a down payment on one, lmao. 

I definitely think that griffons will be innately magical, along with all the other "mythical" creatures in the world. I do see them varying in size though, some small some large. I think only a few species would be able to carry a man (or woman). And also, I see them being not only a hybrid of a lion and an eagle, but from other species as well. (Maybe an owl and a house cat, or a tundra swan and an arctic fox? It brings so many other complicated things in the mix: are there any other types of hybrid species, if not, why?) I think it could be done, if done right, yet I'm not sure how experimental I should get before I get a full rough draft done. -- Since I didn't back up my 30k WIP I'm just going to start over until my laptop can be hopefully fixed.

You know, I never really thought about trees like that. I'm from FL and there are some nice sized trees here, but I see what you mean. That picture was sad  but it gave a lot of perspective. As for the logging industry, I think only two countries would really have industrialized logging. Most notably the iron oaks that surround the Iron Mountains in Lemeria. What's weird with this story, is that it's high fantasy with almost modern concepts. It's a world that I've never tried writing before, and has it's own unique set of (scary) challenges. There's something special about this story that just speaks to me though. 

Well, I think cosmology is what I'm referring to. The reason I reference it, is because I think the blood of the Forgotten One (which is like the All Father of the universe) is the source of all magic in this 'verse. What I have so far of the "cosmology" of this world, is that the Forgotten One dropped some of his blood into the Waters of Chaos and the worlds were born. (The Waters of Chaos would be his counterpart, the feminine aspect to the Forgotten One's masculine. The All Mother if you will.) I think in the end the Forgotten One spilled too much of his blood and "died", leaving the worlds/realm to "chaos." Yet everything that's living/alive has His essence, has that magic that originally created the universe. 

Now with magic, I have to admit that everyone cannot perform magic. But it's a lot more common that what you see in most novels out today. I think magic itself might be industrialized - to a point. It might be better to say, what you can do with magic, is what's industrialized. I'm not exactly sure, and it's past my bedtime. 

My issue though, is that there are multiple "forms" or "styles" of magic. As well as magical beings. 
There are "Wildlings", essentially human, just not mortal. At least in the normal sense. They're not immortal but they're not subject to the same rules as "mortals." And their magic (prowess) is more potent than mortals. Also, Brotherhood members (ummm, male Wildlings that "came to the light" (were coerced with the threat of genocide about 200-300 years ago) and Wildlings/Halflings with strong Wildling blood, can perform "necromancy." 

Yet it's not exactly that simple. This is how I have it written in my notes: 

AUTOMATONS
Mechanical creatures that necros are able to create by harvesting dark spirits, breaking their wills, and binding them to a shell. Programmable to an extent, Automatons can only be “killed” if their shell is compromised and destroyed. In that sense, they are very much like Rowling’s horcruxes.

I haven't given them too much thought yet, seeing as I'm not exactly sure where they (the dark spirits) come from. I do know that there are different worlds/realms/planes of existence, but I have yet to chart them out and name them. I know the "Spirit World" is a thing, and something that I have to flesh out because it's an integral aspect of the arching plot of this series. 

There are also, "Spirits of the Earth/Gods of the Earth" magical "entities" that refused to leave the "mortal realm" when the rest of them chose to leave and spend eternity in the "Spirit World." Now to answer your question, (in two parts, lol) I think dark spirits would be semi-omnipotent. You make a good point about the spirit paying attention or not. I kinda like that idea. But I also see the spirits knowing things they shouldn't, and in turn, the necro's harnessing their magic would too. Now, Gods of the Earth, would be omnipotent, and much more ethereal, powerful. And I don't know if they'd able to contained or restrained, yet I know they can be killed. As they're currently dying off in'verse.  

Now I don't know if magic is actually living, or if it's just quasi-sentient. Does sentience necessarily equate life? 

I would definitely love to hear your thoughts on cosmology. I appreciate every comment you make, I'm always learning something new!! And man I'm always interested in topics such as these. I love hearing and bouncing thoughts back and forth between people who are knowledgeable and equally as interested in story-building and all the unique trivia facts we authors end up acquiring throughout the years. 

Alright let's see: (I've never been very good with this stuff anyways, so please correct me if I'm wrong.) 

inch, foot, centimeter, yard, millimeter, hmmm, do ounces and stuff like that count as well? Cause I know there are ounces and troy ounces (used for measuring gold and stuff of the like right?) umm hmmm. fl ounces, liters (now I'm just ramblings hehe) okay well I have to admit I'm pretty much stumped. Let's see if I can come up with anymore.. meters? kilos? (I think that's the metric system though.) Hmm. Well I think that's all I know... I think I'm going to go google it now, lol. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ztlawton In reply to valhaia [2016-03-28 01:37:50 +0000 UTC]

REALLY sorry about taking twenty days (golly-gee-willikers!) to reply to this one. One thing kept leading to another, and, well....

Your world sounds very, very interesting. Due to continuing time constraints, I unfortunately have to limit my reply. But I am fascinated!

The explanation of the origin of your universe is particularly noteworthy because of how well it fits what we know of ours. According to current consensus, the universe started with the famous "big bang", where everything that Is erupted from a singularity. Had this eruption been represented Pure Order, there would be no stars or planets today - the entire universe would consist of a perfect, even, orderly distribution of matter and energy. But instead, in the first instants of creation, there was a bit of chaos. Some parts of the universe had a little more matter, others had a little less, and the force of gravity took it from there. Small variations cascaded into utter chaos; matter collapsed, ignited, exploded, and collapsed again - and then, as a little bit of order began to reassert itself, there were stars, and planets... and life. Life, which strives to build a semblance of order from chaos, constantly fighting against entropy - which seeks to do the opposite.

On to the magic itself: Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively. Life is the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. Whether you can have the former without the latter has been the subject of lots of heated debate through the ages.

And for measurements of length...
Metric: kilometer → 10x → hectometer → 10x → decameter → 10x → meter → 10x → decimeter → 10x → centimeter → 10x → millimeter
U.S.*:  mile → 8x → furlong → 10x → chain → 11x → fathom → 2x → yard → 3x → foot → 3x → hand → 4x → inch → 3x → barleycorn → 4x → poppyseed
*A.K.A. Imperial, English, etc.

Note that in metric, every unit goes by a factor of 10. In the US system, on the other hand, it's all over the place. To make matters worse, there are actually two different "chains" (Gunter's and Ramsden's) and three different "miles" (Statute, Nautical, and Roman), all of different lengths. The comparisons given above are for Gunter's Chains and Statute Miles. Also, one poppyseed is about 2.1 millimeters.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0