I know life is pretty chaotic for the time being, at least here in the US but likely much of the world on top of the US. Stay safe and be well!

You might want to know that California(the State with the flag of a Bear) is currently under chaos.

Anyways woo more NSFW stuff.

kts said:
You might want to know that California(the State with the flag of a Bear) is currently under chaos.

Anyways woo more NSFW stuff.

Yeeeup

Fishing is a cause of quite a few folks getting prosthetics even in our modern society. Boats, lines and waves have a nasty habit of putting shearing force with a lot of mass behind it suddenly onto limbs.

I have to it, I find it curious that with all the mana and other bronze-tech about, Lorrel doesn't even have something as simple as hooks. Or maybe he isn't wearing them right now. They were certainly extant as far back as Rome, and other forms of simple/cosmetic prosthetics go back even further than that to ancient Egypt, at the least. The middle ages saw a number of complex 'Eisenfausts' (iron fists) among mercenaries, some of which were articulated and lockable so that they could be used to grasp a shield or reins reliably but then released when necessary (although there is at least one famous story of a fellow with a quite complex one who was killed when he couldn't release it from a siege ladder...The fact he could use it to haul his ass UP a siege ladder in half-plate is impressive, even if the mechanism failed toward the end).

Sorry, just a thing I've thought about on occasional authorial forays. Prostheses can be effective without having much technology to them in keeping a member of a society 'active' and 'involved.'

Not that Lorrel seems to feel unwelcome or incapable!

Best luck on the job front; these are tough times for that (not that there were ever GOOD times for that).

shunka_warakin said:
Fishing is a cause of quite a few folks getting prosthetics even in our modern society. Boats, lines and waves have a nasty habit of putting shearing force with a lot of mass behind it suddenly onto limbs.

I have to it, I find it curious that with all the mana and other bronze-tech about, Lorrel doesn't even have something as simple as hooks. Or maybe he isn't wearing them right now. They were certainly extant as far back as Rome, and other forms of simple/cosmetic prosthetics go back even further than that to ancient Egypt, at the least. The middle ages saw a number of complex 'Eisenfausts' (iron fists) among mercenaries, some of which were articulated and lockable so that they could be used to grasp a shield or reins reliably but then released when necessary (although there is at least one famous story of a fellow with a quite complex one who was killed when he couldn't release it from a siege ladder...The fact he could use it to haul his ass UP a siege ladder in half-plate is impressive, even if the mechanism failed toward the end).

Sorry, just a thing I've thought about on occasional authorial forays. Prostheses can be effective without having much technology to them in keeping a member of a society 'active' and 'involved.'

Not that Lorrel seems to feel unwelcome or incapable!

Best luck on the job front; these are tough times for that (not that there were ever GOOD times for that).

The issue mostly comes down to the limitations of how drekir in this society and societies well through the consequent "Quiet Age" work metals like copper and bronze, but in this case copper. Its cold hammered, which limits a dreks ability to make things like sockets. Specifically for the Bades (fisherdrakes), they make copper objects but they're mostly decorative rather than utilitarian. Maybe they could make a peg arm with a hook in it! But in this case it just wasn't deemed for or by Lorrel here to be an option.

Even when bronze comes around, if drekir make it by sundering and merging rather than smelting and casting they wind up with a plate that needs to be hammered into a shape, so in many societies that don't melt and cast conventionally even their bronze tools face a similar limitation.

I don't think a medieval, articulateable hand would be on the list of immediate possibilities for drekir. But there are later artifice prosthetics that are constructed like an autonomous artifice but to be piloted by the wearers spirit. Artifice prosthetics don't really show up until the 6000sPA at the earliest as a rare matter, though are ubiquitous by the Thalmvaric age of the 20,000s+ PA. But for these drekir all the way on the other end of the timeline its gong to likely be a simple hook hand or some rudimentary peg arms. Artifice prosthetics on the other hand can almost perfectly replicate the abilities and functions of a limb (Or you know, you can hook a wood drill onto your wrist and spin it with your spirit if you want to, it's a free country)

One of my favorite things I've encountered reading about archaeology are the stories of people who, in spite of their disabilities, were treated well by their societies. The Arabian date girl who, in spite of a crippling birth condition, was treated well, lived a long life and had her teeth rotted away because she was spoiled with Dates. There is also the Hanoi man, a man who had a crippling spinal condition that nonetheless lived pretty far and was buried in a way that is correlated with some degree of prestige. As well as just the amount of bodies with poorly healed bones, evidence chronic degenerative conditions, amputations etc. Folks were understandably very uneager to throw people who were likely loved ones to the side.

So Lorrel is a living example of that, a tragic double amputee who still helps around and is accepted in his den in spite of him missing his hands. He is disabled but he is unquestionably accepted. While communities do need to work to survive, life is more than survival alone, a den is a sort of naturally found family and denmates denmates.

I came across this author, "miguel_the_divine_dragon", while aimlessly browsing. Do you two know each other?

what885 said:
I came across this author, "miguel_the_divine_dragon", while aimlessly browsing. Do you two know each other?

He came to my server as a fan in the DragonScape and specifically an older minicanon known as the "ADC canon". He's a nice guy, we talk a lot

thepatchedragon said:
The issue mostly comes down to the limitations of how drekir in this society and societies well through the consequent "Quiet Age" work metals like copper and bronze, but in this case copper. Its cold hammered, which limits a dreks ability to make things like sockets. Specifically for the Bades (fisherdrakes), they make copper objects but they're mostly decorative rather than utilitarian. Maybe they could make a peg arm with a hook in it! But in this case it just wasn't deemed for or by Lorrel here to be an option.

Even when bronze comes around, if drekir make it by sundering and merging rather than smelting and casting they wind up with a plate that needs to be hammered into a shape, so in many societies that don't melt and cast conventionally even their bronze tools face a similar limitation.

I don't think a medieval, articulateable hand would be on the list of immediate possibilities for drekir. But there are later artifice prosthetics that are constructed like an autonomous artifice but to be piloted by the wearers spirit. Artifice prosthetics don't really show up until the 6000sPA at the earliest as a rare matter, though are ubiquitous by the Thalmvaric age of the 20,000s+ PA. But for these drekir all the way on the other end of the timeline its gong to likely be a simple hook hand or some rudimentary peg arms. Artifice prosthetics on the other hand can almost perfectly replicate the abilities and functions of a limb (Or you know, you can hook a wood drill onto your wrist and spin it with your spirit if you want to, it's a free country)

One of my favorite things I've encountered reading about archaeology are the stories of people who, in spite of their disabilities, were treated well by their societies. The Arabian date girl who, in spite of a crippling birth condition, was treated well, lived a long life and had her teeth rotted away because she was spoiled with Dates. There is also the Hanoi man, a man who had a crippling spinal condition that nonetheless lived pretty far and was buried in a way that is correlated with some degree of prestige. As well as just the amount of bodies with poorly healed bones, evidence chronic degenerative conditions, amputations etc. Folks were understandably very uneager to throw people who were likely loved ones to the side.

So Lorrel is a living example of that, a tragic double amputee who still helps around and is accepted in his den in spite of him missing his hands. He is disabled but he is unquestionably accepted. While communities do need to work to survive, life is more than survival alone, a den is a sort of naturally found family and denmates denmates.

Ma'am, this is a Wendy's.

bird-tm said:
Ma'am, this is a Wendy's.

The ramble comes as a part of the Meal Deal

I'd like to know: ① What was the plot like at the very beginning of your work? ❷ What is the plot like now? ❸ And could you briefly explain the content of different storylines? Of course, the level of detail depends on how much you want to share.Σ(ﾟ∀ﾟﾉ)ﾉ

what885 said:
I'd like to know: ① What was the plot like at the very beginning of your work? ❷ What is the plot like now? ❸ And could you briefly explain the content of different storylines? Of course, the level of detail depends on how much you want to share.Σ(ﾟ∀ﾟﾉ)ﾉ

I don't understand, if you want to know what the plot of the storyline is, then that's what reading the stories is for

If you mean more the setting and canon its changed quite a bit since it started in 2018

In the early state of the canon it was written to be a tabletop rpg style setting, with aesthetics and themes more driven around "Dragunknights fighting evil dragon cults to retake lost cities"

Though as I lost time to actually run TTRPG games as a GM (life, its how it is) The setting slowly shifted more into a pure worldbuilding project and the scope shifted, along with the canon, to the idea of how society would change if the people were broadly forced to start over from scratch against their will. The original form of this take on the canon involved 3000 years ing between the pulse and awakening.It's where a lot of the themes and inspirations around prehistory and ancient history, archaeology, and a more "tribal" (however you wanna cut that) theme to it.

Eventually it briefly shifted back firmly into a post apocalyptic canon that is technically what the 1st chapter of The Long Hike takes place in. Though by chapter 2 the lore had broadly shifted away from that (which leaves chapter 1 looking a bit out of of place sadly) and at this point the setting has been locked in its current canonical state for at least 4 years.

Still post apocalyptic obviously, but a lot less directly so.

thepatchedragon said:
The issue mostly comes down to the limitations of how drekir in this society and societies well through the consequent "Quiet Age" work metals like copper and bronze, but in this case copper. Its cold hammered, which limits a dreks ability to make things like sockets. Specifically for the Bades (fisherdrakes), they make copper objects but they're mostly decorative rather than utilitarian. Maybe they could make a peg arm with a hook in it! But in this case it just wasn't deemed for or by Lorrel here to be an option.

Even when bronze comes around, if drekir make it by sundering and merging rather than smelting and casting they wind up with a plate that needs to be hammered into a shape, so in many societies that don't melt and cast conventionally even their bronze tools face a similar limitation.

I don't think a medieval, articulateable hand would be on the list of immediate possibilities for drekir. But there are later artifice prosthetics that are constructed like an autonomous artifice but to be piloted by the wearers spirit. Artifice prosthetics don't really show up until the 6000sPA at the earliest as a rare matter, though are ubiquitous by the Thalmvaric age of the 20,000s+ PA. But for these drekir all the way on the other end of the timeline its gong to likely be a simple hook hand or some rudimentary peg arms. Artifice prosthetics on the other hand can almost perfectly replicate the abilities and functions of a limb (Or you know, you can hook a wood drill onto your wrist and spin it with your spirit if you want to, it's a free country)

One of my favorite things I've encountered reading about archaeology are the stories of people who, in spite of their disabilities, were treated well by their societies. The Arabian date girl who, in spite of a crippling birth condition, was treated well, lived a long life and had her teeth rotted away because she was spoiled with Dates. There is also the Hanoi man, a man who had a crippling spinal condition that nonetheless lived pretty far and was buried in a way that is correlated with some degree of prestige. As well as just the amount of bodies with poorly healed bones, evidence chronic degenerative conditions, amputations etc. Folks were understandably very uneager to throw people who were likely loved ones to the side.

So Lorrel is a living example of that, a tragic double amputee who still helps around and is accepted in his den in spite of him missing his hands. He is disabled but he is unquestionably accepted. While communities do need to work to survive, life is more than survival alone, a den is a sort of naturally found family and denmates denmates.

Oh, copper/bronze for the cup would be pretty outrageous as a resource-investment, yes. Traditionally leather, fabric and wood were the most common materials for that sort of thing. And a wooden hook (or even a curved 'spoon' that would allow cradling/lifting things with two of them) would still permit better manipulation than simply a peg. But he's apparently got nothing.

I do take your meaning though, and do find the stories you mentioned (and other such examples) to be a fantastic example of one of the behaviors that we had in the past but that our current society makes more difficult. The ostracization and othering of injured people who can't do 'regular work' is a rather ugly aspect of many modern societies, particularly those that attach 'productivity' to 'value as a person.'

(｡- .•)

ThePatcheDragon said:

what885 said:
I'd like to know: ① What was the plot like at the very beginning of your work? ❷ What is the plot like now? ❸ And could you briefly explain the content of different storylines? Of course, the level of detail depends on how much you want to share.Σ(ﾟ∀ﾟﾉ)ﾉ

I don't understand, if you want to know what the plot of the storyline is, then that's what reading the stories is for

If you mean more the setting and canon its changed quite a bit since it started in 2018

In the early state of the canon it was written to be a tabletop rpg style setting, with aesthetics and themes more driven around "Dragunknights fighting evil dragon cults to retake lost cities"

Though as I lost time to actually run TTRPG games as a GM (life, its how it is) The setting slowly shifted more into a pure worldbuilding project and the scope shifted, along with the canon, to the idea of how society would change if the people were broadly forced to start over from scratch against their will. The original form of this take on the canon involved 3000 years ing between the pulse and awakening.It's where a lot of the themes and inspirations around prehistory and ancient history, archaeology, and a more "tribal" (however you wanna cut that) theme to it.

Eventually it briefly shifted back firmly into a post apocalyptic canon that is technically what the 1st chapter of The Long Hike takes place in. Though by chapter 2 the lore had broadly shifted away from that (which leaves chapter 1 looking a bit out of of place sadly) and at this point the setting has been locked in its current canonical state for at least 4 years.

Still post apocalyptic obviously, but a lot less directly so.

Interesting.
I think — if there are no ruins of old cities or remnants of old human tech, and you’re extrapolating purely from a Stone Age restart —
then it should naturally go: slave society → medieval → industrial revolution.

Of course, that depends on whether their brains (or their descendants’ brains) remain just as smart.

Another thing you might’ve overlooked:
Social development requires organization. Organization means two strangers cooperating because of a shared rallying cry — either common fear (outside enemies), common interest (dividing up meat), or common faith (priests bullshitting them into it).

And tribal confederations — multiple tribes obeying a central tribe — if they stay small (at least need to hit the thousand-person scale before real society emerges), they’ll just stagnate. Until they’re either enslaved or wiped out by another confederation that did scale up socially.

(I’ll stop here for now.)

what885 said:

Interesting.
I think — if there are no ruins of old cities or remnants of old human tech, and you’re extrapolating purely from a Stone Age restart —
then it should naturally go: slave society → medieval → industrial revolution.

Of course, that depends on whether their brains (or their descendants’ brains) remain just as smart.

Another thing you might’ve overlooked:
Social development requires organization. Organization means two strangers cooperating because of a shared rallying cry — either common fear (outside enemies), common interest (dividing up meat), or common faith (priests bullshitting them into it).

And tribal confederations — multiple tribes obeying a central tribe — if they stay small (at least need to hit the thousand-person scale before real society emerges), they’ll just stagnate. Until they’re either enslaved or wiped out by another confederation that did scale up socially.

(I’ll stop here for now.)

You know no disrespect, I think that is so far off the mark of how societies actually formed and continue to form and change today as well as historically. To be clear sure there have been slave societies, "Medieval societies" (Medieval is a time period, not a system, feudalism I assume is what you meant) Industrial revolution etc. But not every society was any of those historically or today.

Lets be clear, when we look at societies across history and prehistory in various regions, from the archaic to Woodlands period of North America, the Iron age and prior stone age of Central Africa, or the Neolithic/Chalcolithic, bronze and iron ages of Europe and Eurasia, we see an incredible variety of societies with different methods of social organization, economy, technology, etc. The evidence tends to point to few societies lining up with this incredibly narrow band you've laid out.

Likewise those societies didn't change in predictable patterns, even in the past 500 years we have seen societies industrialize while others maintained preexisting technological and social organizational paradigms. It's like when folks say the Hadza, Anindilyakwa, Haudenosaunee or Mapuche were/are "ancient peoples" when they encountered other cultures when in reality they were and are people just as modern as the folks who found them. They simply chose a different way of doing life than us in the US, Europe, east Asia, etc.

Society doesn't progress linearly, if anything societies move in accordance with the world around them. Tribal social organization is sufficient organization based on kinship, reciprocity, and shared ideas. It's existed for hundreds of thousands of years, still exists today, and still seems to work very well even next to the existence of complex state societies.

Tribal confederations aren't that, what you've described is a compound chiefdom in anthropology similar to Zulu social organization during the 19th century.

Frankly, and no disrespect meant, this I feel ignores actual anthropology entirely and exchanges it for some vague pop cultural norms about what society is without any serious understanding of the past 4000 years that have brought us to this point. I wouldn't even say I entirely understand a vague idea of what "society" is exactly, but I have tried to read through anthropology books and ethnographies to do the best I can.

Frankly no, If you suggest one universal path for anything cultural or societal you're already off the mark.

Again no offense intended, I just think this is a pretty thin, unrealistic vision for how societies actually change and form and organize.

ThePatcheDragon said:

what885 said:

Interesting.
I think — if there are no ruins of old cities or remnants of old human tech, and you’re extrapolating purely from a Stone Age restart —
then it should naturally go: slave society → medieval → industrial revolution.

Of course, that depends on whether their brains (or their descendants’ brains) remain just as smart.

Another thing you might’ve overlooked:
Social development requires organization. Organization means two strangers cooperating because of a shared rallying cry — either common fear (outside enemies), common interest (dividing up meat), or common faith (priests bullshitting them into it).

And tribal confederations — multiple tribes obeying a central tribe — if they stay small (at least need to hit the thousand-person scale before real society emerges), they’ll just stagnate. Until they’re either enslaved or wiped out by another confederation that did scale up socially.

(I’ll stop here for now.)

You know no disrespect, I think that is so far off the mark of how societies actually formed and continue to form and change today as well as historically. To be clear sure there have been slave societies, "Medieval societies" (Medieval is a time period, not a system, feudalism I assume is what you meant) Industrial revolution etc. But not every society was any of those historically or today.

Lets be clear, when we look at societies across history and prehistory in various regions, from the archaic to Woodlands period of North America, the Iron age and prior stone age of Central Africa, or the Neolithic/Chalcolithic, bronze and iron ages of Europe and Eurasia, we see an incredible variety of societies with different methods of social organization, economy, technology, etc. The evidence tends to point to few societies lining up with this incredibly narrow band you've laid out.

Likewise those societies didn't change in predictable patterns, even in the past 500 years we have seen societies industrialize while others maintained preexisting technological and social organizational paradigms. It's like when folks say the Hadza, Anindilyakwa, Haudenosaunee or Mapuche were/are "ancient peoples" when they encountered other cultures when in reality they were and are people just as modern as the folks who found them. They simply chose a different way of doing life than us in the US, Europe, east Asia, etc.

Society doesn't progress linearly, if anything societies move in accordance with the world around them. Tribal social organization is sufficient organization based on kinship, reciprocity, and shared ideas. It's existed for hundreds of thousands of years, still exists today, and still seems to work very well even next to the existence of complex state societies.

Tribal confederations aren't that, what you've described is a compound chiefdom in anthropology similar to Zulu social organization during the 19th century.

Frankly, and no disrespect meant, this I feel ignores actual anthropology entirely and exchanges it for some vague pop cultural norms about what society is without any serious understanding of the past 4000 years that have brought us to this point. I wouldn't even say I entirely understand a vague idea of what "society" is exactly, but I have tried to read through anthropology books and ethnographies to do the best I can.

Frankly no, If you suggest one universal path for anything cultural or societal you're already off the mark.

Again no offense intended, I just think this is a pretty thin, unrealistic vision for how societies actually change and form and organize.

I really like this kind of deductive reasoning mindset of yours 👍

Topic: You're right, I don't know everything. I just gave it a rough thought. Social development is shaped by multiple factors, among which I think the most important ones are geography and climate, followed by the biological and ecological environment (i.e., the animals, edible plants, etc., that we can see in nature). So what I need to understand now is: Is the continent in this worldbuilding roughly the same as Earth's original?

And here's the next question: Does this worldbuilding have things like 'factions' or 'large tribal alliances'? My thinking is that only when there are enough different factions can their interactions drive further outcomes (not necessarily all for the story, but logically there should be causal chains in the background). Also, I personally like scenarios where multiple factions coexist and constrain one another—even in a Stone Age / tribal era or feudal era.

Finally, I do have blind spots in my knowledge on these topics, so if any of my past or future questions or answers come off as 'bad' or dumb, I hope you'll be as understanding as last time o(｀ω´*)o

what885 said:

I really like this kind of deductive reasoning mindset of yours 👍

Topic: You're right, I don't know everything. I just gave it a rough thought. Social development is shaped by multiple factors, among which I think the most important ones are geography and climate, followed by the biological and ecological environment (i.e., the animals, edible plants, etc., that we can see in nature). So what I need to understand now is: Is the continent in this worldbuilding roughly the same as Earth's original?

And here's the next question: Does this worldbuilding have things like 'factions' or 'large tribal alliances'? My thinking is that only when there are enough different factions can their interactions drive further outcomes (not necessarily all for the story, but logically there should be causal chains in the background). Also, I personally like scenarios where multiple factions coexist and constrain one another—even in a Stone Age / tribal era or feudal era.

Finally, I do have blind spots in my knowledge on these topics, so if any of my past or future questions or answers come off as 'bad' or dumb, I hope you'll be as understanding as last time o(｀ω´*)o

I think bad or dumb is the wrong way to take it, it's just not how societies actually organized is all.

There are examples of confederations that form for short periods, such as the Dakota confederation in this same comic back in chapters 7-9 that fought the Jawgot Bandits as a bunch of distinct communities ing together. And there is at least one city state in the plana of Suyu (The Americas).

I don't want to say there aren't factions bickering in the lore, there are such as the Javaso and neighboring Ilga peoples who live in the same region of a different plana known as Logáu and are quite known to bicker. But really there is often a lot of contesting within tribal networks as outside. They are decentralized, they don't all get along in harmony all the time. But generally most folks mean well.

Most tribal alliances or broader unities only really form in situations where something has to be done as a larger group, There just isn't enough population density to facilitate that outside of extreme circumstances.

The evidence and academic literature tends to point to very dispersed groups up until the more settled periods of the Neolithic in the Stone Age, throughout the paleolithic and mesolithic, as well as the archaic period of North America, the Middle Stone age of central Africa, and into the Jomon period of Japan we see populations that were very sparse and spread out thin. So most of the time your life was more as a part of a band of relatives/acquaintances ,hunting and gathering, who didn't interact much with people outside of a sharednetwork of folks who spoke the same language.

even then we see in more contemporarily recorded societies (past 500 years) that those meetings of the broader tribal network didn't happen too often, maybe once a year in normal times, more often in more urgent times. I tend to assume drekir are the same. They have their den with whom they spend the majority of their day to day, they may visit or be visited by other dens in their tribe on occasion, and maybe once a year they all get together to trade, socialize, handle political issues, and otherwise have a good time before returning to their general villages/nomadic ranges/whatever it is they were doing prior

ThePatcheDragon said:

what885 said:

I really like this kind of deductive reasoning mindset of yours 👍

Topic: You're right, I don't know everything. I just gave it a rough thought. Social development is shaped by multiple factors, among which I think the most important ones are geography and climate, followed by the biological and ecological environment (i.e., the animals, edible plants, etc., that we can see in nature). So what I need to understand now is: Is the continent in this worldbuilding roughly the same as Earth's original?

And here's the next question: Does this worldbuilding have things like 'factions' or 'large tribal alliances'? My thinking is that only when there are enough different factions can their interactions drive further outcomes (not necessarily all for the story, but logically there should be causal chains in the background). Also, I personally like scenarios where multiple factions coexist and constrain one another—even in a Stone Age / tribal era or feudal era.

Finally, I do have blind spots in my knowledge on these topics, so if any of my past or future questions or answers come off as 'bad' or dumb, I hope you'll be as understanding as last time o(｀ω´*)o

I think bad or dumb is the wrong way to take it, it's just not how societies actually organized is all.

There are examples of confederations that form for short periods, such as the Dakota confederation in this same comic back in chapters 7-9 that fought the Jawgot Bandits as a bunch of distinct communities ing together. And there is at least one city state in the plana of Suyu (The Americas).

I don't want to say there aren't factions bickering in the lore, there are such as the Javaso and neighboring Ilga peoples who live in the same region of a different plana known as Logáu and are quite known to bicker. But really there is often a lot of contesting within tribal networks as outside. They are decentralized, they don't all get along in harmony all the time. But generally most folks mean well.

Most tribal alliances or broader unities only really form in situations where something has to be done as a larger group, There just isn't enough population density to facilitate that outside of extreme circumstances.

The evidence and academic literature tends to point to very dispersed groups up until the more settled periods of the Neolithic in the Stone Age, throughout the paleolithic and mesolithic, as well as the archaic period of North America, the Middle Stone age of central Africa, and into the Jomon period of Japan we see populations that were very sparse and spread out thin. So most of the time your life was more as a part of a band of relatives/acquaintances ,hunting and gathering, who didn't interact much with people outside of a sharednetwork of folks who spoke the same language.

even then we see in more contemporarily recorded societies (past 500 years) that those meetings of the broader tribal network didn't happen too often, maybe once a year in normal times, more often in more urgent times. I tend to assume drekir are the same. They have their den with whom they spend the majority of their day to day, they may visit or be visited by other dens in their tribe on occasion, and maybe once a year they all get together to trade, socialize, handle political issues, and otherwise have a good time before returning to their general villages/nomadic ranges/whatever it is they were doing prior

No offense: what you said about the Paleolithic is mostly spot on, but I think there's one thing you might be overlooking — territory and resource claims.

Simply put, for a tribe to survive normally, a surplus of resources is highly desired, and that's where territoriality comes in. The trigger for territorial conflict is more likely to be: localized resource fluctuations (e.g., prey migration paths shifting for a few years), or population displacement pressure (groups further afield being pushed to migrate by climate shifts, creating a domino effect). So territorial delineation was almost certainly the most common scenario in that era. This drives a tribe and another tribe, because of a third tribe larger than either of them, to develop a feeling of 'is that bigger tribe going to take my territory?' — and so they band together into an acephalous tribal confederation. That's likely how factions formed. Later, these confederations might absorb more small tribes into even larger confederations, until they eventually split again. And Homo sapiens, precisely because of this chain of social ties, was able to sustain greater organizational cohesion — which allowed them to wipe out/absorb the other 'brothers' of the genus Homo, leaving only sapiens, and then entering the Neolithic.

If we're talking about non-harmonious tribes, I think you could consider, in a future chapter or during the first month after the current chaotic disaster, having the people we currently see (the protagonist group you're currently updating) later encounter some friendly/open or xenophobic/conservative tribal confederations.

For example: a new side story — A (a group of several individuals, referred to as A for the whole group) later wanders into region a, encounters Tribe α. Tribe α is open, and A finds something good or receives help there. Eventually A still has to leave. Days later, on a distant mountain, they encounter of Tribe α whom they had previously helped. Those have been defeated in a battle with Tribe β and are now migrating/fleeing. A may choose to follow. Even though you may have already written something like this, later you could write Tribe α encountering Tribe δ, forming a possible alliance to counterattack. I think this would be a great way to showcase a rare Neolithic conflict. But of course, this is all for later.

No disparagement/mockery intended: Honestly, for me personally, this period isn't really my main interest. I feel like apart from biological evolution and how societies formed, there's not that much to dig into. Most of what I've studied is Iron Age knowledge and history, which might be one reason.

That said, my interest in the strategic/faction side of things — that's very high.

ThePatcheDragon said:

what885 said:

I really like this kind of deductive reasoning mindset of yours 👍

Topic: You're right, I don't know everything. I just gave it a rough thought. Social development is shaped by multiple factors, among which I think the most important ones are geography and climate, followed by the biological and ecological environment (i.e., the animals, edible plants, etc., that we can see in nature). So what I need to understand now is: Is the continent in this worldbuilding roughly the same as Earth's original?

And here's the next question: Does this worldbuilding have things like 'factions' or 'large tribal alliances'? My thinking is that only when there are enough different factions can their interactions drive further outcomes (not necessarily all for the story, but logically there should be causal chains in the background). Also, I personally like scenarios where multiple factions coexist and constrain one another—even in a Stone Age / tribal era or feudal era.

Finally, I do have blind spots in my knowledge on these topics, so if any of my past or future questions or answers come off as 'bad' or dumb, I hope you'll be as understanding as last time o(｀ω´*)o

I think bad or dumb is the wrong way to take it, it's just not how societies actually organized is all.

There are examples of confederations that form for short periods, such as the Dakota confederation in this same comic back in chapters 7-9 that fought the Jawgot Bandits as a bunch of distinct communities ing together. And there is at least one city state in the plana of Suyu (The Americas).

I don't want to say there aren't factions bickering in the lore, there are such as the Javaso and neighboring Ilga peoples who live in the same region of a different plana known as Logáu and are quite known to bicker. But really there is often a lot of contesting within tribal networks as outside. They are decentralized, they don't all get along in harmony all the time. But generally most folks mean well.

Most tribal alliances or broader unities only really form in situations where something has to be done as a larger group, There just isn't enough population density to facilitate that outside of extreme circumstances.

The evidence and academic literature tends to point to very dispersed groups up until the more settled periods of the Neolithic in the Stone Age, throughout the paleolithic and mesolithic, as well as the archaic period of North America, the Middle Stone age of central Africa, and into the Jomon period of Japan we see populations that were very sparse and spread out thin. So most of the time your life was more as a part of a band of relatives/acquaintances ,hunting and gathering, who didn't interact much with people outside of a sharednetwork of folks who spoke the same language.

even then we see in more contemporarily recorded societies (past 500 years) that those meetings of the broader tribal network didn't happen too often, maybe once a year in normal times, more often in more urgent times. I tend to assume drekir are the same. They have their den with whom they spend the majority of their day to day, they may visit or be visited by other dens in their tribe on occasion, and maybe once a year they all get together to trade, socialize, handle political issues, and otherwise have a good time before returning to their general villages/nomadic ranges/whatever it is they were doing prior

No offense: what you said about the Paleolithic is mostly spot on, but I think there's one thing you might be overlooking territory and resource claims.

Simply put, for a tribe to survive normally, a surplus of resources is highly desired, and that's where territoriality comes in. The trigger for territorial conflict is more likely to be: localized resource fluctuations (e.g., prey migration paths shifting for a few years), or population displacement pressure (groups further afield being pushed to migrate by climate shifts, creating a domino effect). So territorial delineation was almost certainly the most common scenario in that era. This drives a tribe and another tribe, because of a third tribe larger than either of them, to develop a feeling of 'is that bigger tribe going to take my territory?' — and so they band together into an acephalous tribal confederation. That's likely how factions formed. Later, these confederations might absorb more small tribes into even larger confederations, until they eventually split again. And Homo sapiens, precisely because of this chain of social ties, was able to sustain greater organizational cohesion — which allowed them to wipe out/absorb the other 'brothers' of the genus Homo, leaving only sapiens, and then entering the Neolithic.

If we're talking about non-harmonious tribes, I think you could consider, in a future chapter or during the first month after the current chaotic disaster, having the people we currently see (the protagonist group you're currently updating) later encounter some friendly/open or xenophobic/conservative tribal confederations.

For example: a new side story — A (a group of several individuals, referred to as A for the whole group) later wanders into region a, encounters Tribe α. Tribe α is open, and A finds something good or receives help there. Eventually A still has to leave. Days later, on a distant mountain, they encounter of Tribe α whom they had previously helped. Those have been defeated in a battle with Tribe β and are now migrating/fleeing. A may choose to follow. Even though you may have already written something like this, later you could write Tribe α encountering Tribe δ, forming a possible alliance to counterattack. I think this would be a great way to showcase a rare Neolithic conflict. But of course, this is all for later.

No disparagement/mockery intended: Honestly, for me personally, this period isn't really my main interest. I feel like apart from biological evolution and how societies formed, there's not that much to dig into. Most of what I've studied is Iron Age knowledge and history, which might be one reason.

That said, my interest in the strategic/faction side of things — that's very high.

what885 said:

No offense: what you said about the Paleolithic is mostly spot on, but I think there's one thing you might be overlooking territory and resource claims.

Simply put, for a tribe to survive normally, a surplus of resources is highly desired, and that's where territoriality comes in. The trigger for territorial conflict is more likely to be: localized resource fluctuations (e.g., prey migration paths shifting for a few years), or population displacement pressure (groups further afield being pushed to migrate by climate shifts, creating a domino effect). So territorial delineation was almost certainly the most common scenario in that era. This drives a tribe and another tribe, because of a third tribe larger than either of them, to develop a feeling of 'is that bigger tribe going to take my territory?' — and so they band together into an acephalous tribal confederation. That's likely how factions formed. Later, these confederations might absorb more small tribes into even larger confederations, until they eventually split again. And Homo sapiens, precisely because of this chain of social ties, was able to sustain greater organizational cohesion — which allowed them to wipe out/absorb the other 'brothers' of the genus Homo, leaving only sapiens, and then entering the Neolithic.

If we're talking about non-harmonious tribes, I think you could consider, in a future chapter or during the first month after the current chaotic disaster, having the people we currently see (the protagonist group you're currently updating) later encounter some friendly/open or xenophobic/conservative tribal confederations.

For example: a new side story — A (a group of several individuals, referred to as A for the whole group) later wanders into region a, encounters Tribe α. Tribe α is open, and A finds something good or receives help there. Eventually A still has to leave. Days later, on a distant mountain, they encounter of Tribe α whom they had previously helped. Those have been defeated in a battle with Tribe β and are now migrating/fleeing. A may choose to follow. Even though you may have already written something like this, later you could write Tribe α encountering Tribe δ, forming a possible alliance to counterattack. I think this would be a great way to showcase a rare Neolithic conflict. But of course, this is all for later.

No disparagement/mockery intended: Honestly, for me personally, this period isn't really my main interest. I feel like apart from biological evolution and how societies formed, there's not that much to dig into. Most of what I've studied is Iron Age knowledge and history, which might be one reason.

That said, my interest in the strategic/faction side of things — that's very high.

Those things are pretty frankly covered in tribal negotiations, through networks that have been established. We see this in examples like the "Peoples of the Tundra a Post Communist Transition" where indigenous peoples in the Taimyr in the 90s were able to peacefully negotiate rotating hunting privileges in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the collapse of logistics into Siberia for the better part of 20 years.

Territory itself is often overstated as we often hit ideas of territory with a very anglo-american centric point of view where land is directly owned. Often in practice both in indigenous north america and much of south america is that land use was/is constantly negotiated, rotated and renegotiated within the various folks within a tribe, clan etc. We see similar practices and/or evidence there of amongst modern hunter gatherer groups, pastoralists, and amongst historic communities. Even agricultural ones that would prefer consistent farmland, when the soil became too deprived they would up and move and where they moved would often be heavily negotiated.

The reality is territory can be an incredibly soft concept amongst subsistence societies in a way that modern education really doesn't effectively cover or explain. So with all due respect I think you're coming from a place of intense misunderstandings about how territory functions outside of a western european/anglo american paradigm of land ownership.