1. On a side note on this, would a common worldwide crisis that demands immediate action, such as an invasion of demons from so-called hell (for very good reasons, I assure you) or serious global magical pollution (Etheral Entropy, in the case of my world) that threatens everyone be an excuse in your opinion for a lesser degree of said hostility, at least temporarily? While I understand that there will still be arguments over how things will be done and the such, would 'a crisis unites people' still be a mitigating factor?
"Large groups do not get along that well, and they can disagree for reasons that seem perfectly good at the time." Double that if they agree to do the same thing for different reasons.
2. Hmm...interesting.
3. Considering that the even within the Dragonkin sub-races, their moral code varies, that's not very hard to achieve. And no, none of them are evil or stupid.
4 and 5: No problems there...
You know, I've been considering writing a story about an Alchemist who with the help of a local monarch, tries to build a utopian society. Perhaps you could follow up this rant with 'possible problems in apperantly utopian societies?"
1) I don't know. I would think there would still be people who don't believe in the crisis, or didn't see how it affected them, or just refused to fight it because other people would be fighting it. Look at how many people today don't tend to believe in environmental crises, though those can be truly said to be problems that will affect everyone in the world. At the least, I'd expect some people to be plotting to move immediately once that crisis was over.
I don't know if I want to do the "problems in apparently utopian societies" one, if only because I think dystopias are a pretty dry subgenre.
Look at how many people today don't tend to believe in environmental crises, though those can be truly said to be problems that will affect everyone in the world.
There is also disagreement about the best response to the environmental crisis would be. Unfortunately, nuanced debate tends to get drowned out by the screaming matches of the duelling pundits. Besides, all-or-nothing makes better TV.
Which leads back to the point of: not everyone is going to be on the same page, even when they're on the same side. Different people are going to come up with different solutions, perhaps equally plausible ones. Cue the conflict.
On your #1: There's bound to be someone who decides that the crisis is the fault of another group, call them out on it, and then declare war or something when they deny it. ^_~
If anything, as current history has demonstrated, while a greater peril will pull many people together, it can just as easily widen the hairline fractures running through a society.... some will unify for the sake of addressing the crisis. Others, out of fear or sloth, will imagine that they can remain neutral in the conflict. Others will become violently opposed to the effort undertaken, either because they wish to remain in denial and pretend that nothing has changed, or because they wish to prosper from it personally. Many will blame the very ones fighting on their behalf for the conflict.
1. On a side note on this, would a common worldwide crisis that demands immediate action, such as an invasion of demons from so-called hell (for very good reasons, I assure you) or serious global magical pollution (Etheral Entropy, in the case of my world) that threatens everyone be an excuse in your opinion for a lesser degree of said hostility, at least temporarily? While I understand that there will still be arguments over how things will be done and the such, would 'a crisis unites people' still be a mitigating factor?
"Large groups do not get along that well, and they can disagree for reasons that seem perfectly good at the time." Double that if they agree to do the same thing for different reasons.
2. Hmm...interesting.
3. Considering that the even within the Dragonkin sub-races, their moral code varies, that's not very hard to achieve. And no, none of them are evil or stupid.
4 and 5: No problems there...
You know, I've been considering writing a story about an Alchemist who with the help of a local monarch, tries to build a utopian society. Perhaps you could follow up this rant with 'possible problems in apperantly utopian societies?"
Reply
I don't know if I want to do the "problems in apparently utopian societies" one, if only because I think dystopias are a pretty dry subgenre.
Reply
There is also disagreement about the best response to the environmental crisis would be. Unfortunately, nuanced debate tends to get drowned out by the screaming matches of the duelling pundits. Besides, all-or-nothing makes better TV.
Which leads back to the point of: not everyone is going to be on the same page, even when they're on the same side. Different people are going to come up with different solutions, perhaps equally plausible ones. Cue the conflict.
Reply
Reply
Catastrophe is no guaranteed unifier.
Reply
Leave a comment