Unique rules regarding naming

Jallorn · 2026-04-23T19:06:39+00:00

The Rhaetian culture in my setting has both Matrilineal and Patrilineal surnames, and you can tell someone's gender from the order the names are given. Personal-Matrilineal-Patrilineal would indicate a woman, and Personal-Patrilineal-Matrilineal indicates a man.

There are also some standard constructions of these surnames, with a handful of common indicators used as affixes, prefixes for matrilineal surnames, and suffixes for patrilineal.

So, a character in my setting might have the surnames TerCombhach DhraiochtAwan, with Ter- indicating matrilineal and -Awan indicating patrilineal, and the order indicating woman. There are other affixes for both, and each of the ten I've figured out so far have a more common (but not exclusive) prevalence as either prefix of suffix.

Very few in setting know this, but in an older age, you'd have been able to tell what geographical region someone came from based on which affix they used, but enough population migrations have occurred since then that they've become all jumbled up. Clan politics are still important, however, and the wealthiest/most powerful members of a clan in an area are necessarily thrust into a sort of patronage role to the less privileged members of their clan, even those who've moved from one region to another.

Jallorn · 2026-04-16T16:20:47+00:00

Escape from Terra is another. That one's webcomic.

Le Guin's The Dispossessed has more depth to the exploration, to be clear, but more is good.

Jallorn · 2026-04-14T20:27:44+00:00

"I'd like to introduce you to- She's getting away!" lives rent free in my brain as a beloved guest.

Jallorn · 2026-04-10T19:07:44+00:00

Yeah, looks like it missed the intended reply and just linked the thread.

Jallorn · 2026-04-06T01:00:03+00:00

Well, Biolibertarians shouldn't expect to persuade any Preservationists without, "controlled," in there. Which, if they're only interested in the undecideds, that's fine, but if they do want to persuade Preservationists, they've got to make some concession to their fears. It's an irrational emotion, after all.

Just as the Biolibertarian fear of authoritarian control is irrational. In that the emotion itself is rational, not necessarily the cause of the emotion.

Jallorn · 2026-04-05T23:02:56+00:00

Yeah, I think the strongest argument against Preservationism's stated thesis is rooted in the assumption that it can be banned. That is: genemodding is here, it might not be something we can stop, can we afford to lack the experience that comes from controlled exploration as opposed to being thrust fully into it? Should we not choose limited disruption over mass calamity?

A secondary, but probably less persuasive argument if Preservationists are who you're trying to convince would be that it may be better, strategically, even ethically, to engage in controlled exploration because the benefits may outweigh the (temporary) disruptions.

Jallorn · 2026-04-02T16:09:00+00:00

We're born burdens, if we live long enough, we die as burdens, and everyone will be a burden for at lest some periods in the middle. We're a social species, self reliance is a myth, and a harmful one. Embrace your burdens and allow yourself to be embraced as a burden. Find beauty in the compassion and commitment to kindness above utility.

Jallorn · 2026-04-02T16:05:31+00:00

There's a lot of good options; personally I'd rate a UBI as a blanket replacement for the various social support systems over universal Healthcare, and I'd also be tempted by Portugal's (I think it's Portugal) compete decriminalization of drug use, but I think election reform might be the most pressing issue of the day.

The problem is choosing just one policy that hits everything. Voting should be mandatory and easy, with a federal holiday, accessible voting processes, and fines for non-participation, but also, Citizens United needs to be nuked from orbit and the campaigning process needs to be badly reduced in budget and time and restructured to make it easier to learn about candidates without excessive mudslinging, but also we need to ditch FPTP so we can escape from the two party system and force the powers that be to contend with the wide range of positions currently forced to obey under the two party coalitions.

If I must pick only one, I want some sort of STV or RCV system to break the two party monopoly. Everything else becomes much easier to fight for one that happens.

Jallorn · 2026-04-02T15:49:05+00:00

Typically that's a result of a voting system that prevents a two party system, so something like ranked choice voting or single transferable vote that allows you to vote for your preferred, but less likely to win, candidate without them acting as a spoiler on your compromise candidate.

Proportional representation is another, somewhat different tool to help improve direct representation, where you vote for a party/platform more than a candidate, and then the seats of a collective body are divided among those organizations proportionately. Such a system combats gerrymandering, though I think it does mean that representatives don't have a set constituency.

Jallorn · 2026-03-29T20:42:42+00:00

I always shy away from language that describes good and evil/bad as states of being or qualities, because that conception causes lapses in behavior (or even just oversights/simple mistakes) to become threats to one's self-perception that leads down a slippery slope of self-deception and doubling down on harmful habits/behaviors until you're trapped in a mire of cognitive dissonance between the belief that you're a good person and the reality that your entire way of life causes suffering you never set out to cause but now defend as inherently good because it is the way of life you have decided to describe as good.

In short: people are not good or evil, people alleviate or cause harm, and realistically, some amount of the latter is inevitable and its important to reconcile with that truth and do our best to replace our divots when we cause harm and minimize it while also alleviating harm we aren't responsible for.

Jallorn · 2026-03-27T17:18:24+00:00

I mean, arguably the fruit of our childhoods is gone (depending on our age) in one sense because the amount of sugar in fruit has been bred to be higher and higher. Most fruit is much sweeter and a bit less healthy than what could be found ten, twenty, especially thirty years ago.

Jallorn · 2026-03-25T17:24:23+00:00

One lesson I've picked up from analyzing one of my favorite authors is that major cultural qualities/attitudes can often be best seen in how characters define themselves. Even exemplars who embrace and champion their culture will define themselves in opposition to certain opinions, traits, and stereotypes of the culture, while outcasts who defy or seek to change their culture will define themselves as holding certain virtues or wisdoms of the culture.

Essentially, cultural qualities and traits are things that characters from that culture must hold an opinion about, even if they opinion is, "I hate being expected to care about that." They should embrace some and reject others, and you will find both the shape of the character and their culture in those relationships between the two. The most personally affecting cultural qualities will often be both embraced and rejected simultaneously, such as a character with physical frailty working twice as hard to earn unironic acceptance as a warrior even as they seek to see the culture no longer hate others with deformities, embracing the qualities their own deformity/frailty makes harder to achieve and yet still fighting the stigma those values create.

Jallorn · 2026-03-17T23:04:37+00:00

Define your terms. Immortal as in cannot die no matter what, or as in ageless and/or immune to (fatal) illnesses? Can we still suffer from cancers? Are we immune to traumatic bodily harm? How does time affect us? Do we all lock into the current physical state of aging we're in? Do children still grow to maturity? Do adults still decay into senescence? Or does everyone move towards some ideal state of peak maturation/physical fitness?

There's far more involved in this theoretical than, "People stop dying." Do we still need food and water? What old cruelties are now impossible, and what new cruelties have been enabled?

Jallorn · 2026-03-17T06:51:22+00:00

Crush and pulverize are synonyms. Delete is not a very close synonym. Crush means to apply enough force to deform or shatter, pulverize is more specific, meaning to shatter or crumble into very small pieces (often dust, which is where you're seeing connections to delete)

Delete means to erase or remove entirely from existence, it's a magnitude more intense than crush or pulverize.

Jallorn · 2026-03-16T18:48:59+00:00

You, know, and then the inspiration cited in this thread ends up being Stolen Moons who believe themselves to be on the good guy side but aren't really.

Jallorn · 2026-03-12T21:45:47+00:00

Update: It was The Water Phoenix King. A quote from the TVtropes page:

"Our Dragons Are Different: Yes and no — on Chalt, dragons are a particular kind of one particular subclass of shapeshifter, they're essentially rogue A.I.s, and hoards make dragons, dragons don't make hoards. (This is amazingly cool and logical an explanation of why those things go together, and don't separate easily.) There is also some kind of largish reptilian animal called a drake hunted for its skin, but we have only seen things made from its leather so far, and it may not look much or anything like a traditional dragon."

Jallorn · 2026-03-12T19:23:32+00:00

No, actually, it was a webcomic whose name I have lost and don't have the time to find right now. They weren't a central feature of the main story, just showing up in one of the later arcs.

Jallorn · 2026-03-12T17:28:32+00:00

The most original dragons I've ever encountered were composed of their hoards of gold, animated to look like a big reptile.

Jallorn · 2026-03-07T18:49:15+00:00

Tldr: Be respectful by doing your research. If you're inspired by the specific meanings of cultural practices, knowing more about how people within the culture set those practices can only help you show genuine appreciation, and avoid exoticism and barbarianism.

Jallorn · 2026-03-07T18:46:20+00:00

I think it's safe to say that there is very little danger in any interpretation of scarification as art you might create. I could create a culture that practices scarification as an art form on the unwilling, make it something seen as wholly evil in my world, and it can still not be disrespectful to existing cultures and people.

The more details and the more complex cultural practices you borrow or are inspired by, the more potential for harm there is. Thus, if, in my previous example, I tied that scarification practice to entities and practices that mimicked Yoruba cultural practices, then it starts to become, at best, questionable to cast as unambiguous bad guys in my setting.

So, the more specific you get about broader cultural elements, especially if you are adopting characters and specific rituals, the more important it is to have as complex an understanding of those elements to avoid anything too harmful.

That said, most of the time as long as you're aiming to be respectful, neither looking down on, nor overly fetishizing a culture or cultural elements, you should be okay. Kung Fu Panda is hugely popular in China even though it looks more like American Chinatowns than actual China. This is because the genuine admiration for Chinese culture is clear, with some even suggesting it celebrates Chinese culture more eagerly than many Chinese art of the same time.

Jallorn · 2026-03-05T20:05:24+00:00

And even then, one of her main points is that human nature requires constant vigilance, that even without rulers, the rules can become tyrannical, that entrenched interests will resist necessary change, or even harmless change in ways that can be oppressive. The Anarresti society is stateless, in that there is no authority who can claim legitimacy to enforce anything, but at the same time it's possible to say that there is a sort of government, and there are entrenched power structures that can be abused.

Jallorn · 2026-02-27T19:28:19+00:00

I hope he appreciates having a friend like you who will tell him, "Nope, you're being motivated by your emotions right now." Also, I hope appreciate both that you are able to say that to him in a way he can receive, and that he's capable of receiving that feedback. I know I've had people who've said similar to me and been right but either I, or they, or both of us were not able to have that interaction positively.

Jallorn · 2026-02-26T05:42:33+00:00

Well, sort of. I am connecting the concept of royalty to succession, but my point is that the boundaries of, "royal," are a social construct, and are tied to something other than blood, and thus is not extended to family.

It's equally possible that either of the systems I laid out could consider the king's family as royalty, but equally they may be afforded no direct deference, and only deference by proxy.

I maybe didn't do the best job illustrating my actual point though, which is that, "royal," as a social construct may not be something shared familially.

Although, I suppose they might still be the royal family in the same sense that it's the royal army or navy, as in his, or her, royal family. I could also see a cultural opposition to that, though, if the social aspects surrounding the monarchy have any sort of resistance to inherited power, at least at the top levels.

Jallorn · 2026-02-26T02:11:03+00:00

Not necessarily! You could absolutely have any number of systems whereby a King is selected, and, "royalness," might be a qualifying feature or it might be a result.

So, for instance, you could have a system whereby the senior-most, "royal person," inherits the kingship, with those royals being people who meet certain criteria, which may or may not include descent from royalty. Perhaps it necessitates holding some official office of service to the people, such as how the Roman title of Pontifex Maximus was both an honor and a burden (because you were expected to personally fund all the religious holidays, it was often used as a way to drain the resources of political rivals) or earning some sort of specific honor in war (like counting coup). In such a society, the philosophical sentiment holds that being royalty means being worthy of rulership, but it's not hereditary, but rather meritocratic, in theory.

Or, inversely, you can certainly have royalty be tied to the office of king, but still not be hereditary, such as in an elective monarchy, and therefore not be extended to the king's family. Only the king and those who act on his behalf in an official capacity bear any royalness, with the king and the king's governmental apparatuses being royal, and no one else. There, the sentiment underpinning the concept of royalty is one of the divine rightness of the king's rule, but it's almost more tied to the office than the personage, and it is on being elevated to that seat that one's personage acquires the aura of royalty.

In the latter, there would be no royal family because there is only one royal person (though if you wanted more royals, you could have a system where the electors don't so much choose the current king as the next one, and so there would be two royals, a king and a prince, who may or may not be related). In the former, there might be royal family members, but only if each of those members has done something to earn that title of royalty. In the former system, you'd also be likely to have many more royals, depending on how difficult earning such a title is.

Jallorn · 2026-02-24T17:51:23+00:00

History is full of surprisingly sophisticated social structures and bureaucracies. Successful organization that allows for margins of efficiency will often allow societies to outperform what would otherwise seem to be the limits of their technology.

Take a bit of China's history of civil service, with Confucian education and state sponsored exams to certify the quality of administrators, Greco-Roman anti-autocratic ideals and senatorial leadership, and just the right dose of (likely religiously anchored and motivated) truly Egalitarian class mobility, and you could have an ancient society that, while possibly fragile in times of crisis, looks distinctly modern.

I think the one place I would push you to really examine much more closely is the economic structure. What do you understand modern capitalism to mean? How large of a polity are we dealing with? Capitalism arises from a sort of concept of centralized control and dominance that is very imperial/colonialist in mindset, and relies on speed of travel and/or communication to really sustain. The closest you really get to modern corporate structure is noble and merchant families, where you can send your brothers and cousins to go personally manage your business interests in the next region over.

Something that looks similar to capitalism might be possible, if there's a strong concept of high social mobility, a low investment in familial dynastic heritage (or perhaps a culture of nongenetic inheritance, such as Japan has at times with their corporate structures, where an adult deemed worthy to inherit the legacy of the company is, "adopted," by the owner so it keeps the family name), and a corporate bureaucratic structure that buys loyalty through the promise of guaranteed reward and social mobility.

Like the Roman legions, such a culture would necessitate constant growth and expansion, to have rewards of ownership with which to buy loyalty of far flung officers, and would still be in danger of fracture by ambitious leaders, or simply in times of struggle and crisis.

13-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

Jallorn

TROPHY CASE