How do you come up with a setting?

[Kindling]

Maybe you could think of it less as there being no clear "right" in the argument, and more as there being no clear "wrong"?

Imagine, for example, a religious conflict. The beliefs of Sect Alpha are obviously right, as they are the word of the Gods as interpreted by the Alpha Sect's founder and prophet, who spoke only the truth.
However, the beliefs of Sect Bravo must also be right, seeing as how they are the word of the Gods as interpreted by THEIR prophet, who was equally truthful.
Obviously, to an atheist or agnostic, this situation may seem somewhat trite, but to the religious types involved in either side of the debate, it is a very real and relevant conflict, in which both sides are, from their own perspective, entirely right.

[Jürgen Hubert]

Maybe you could think of it less as there being no clear "right" in the argument, and more as there being no clear "wrong"?

Imagine, for example, a religious conflict. The beliefs of Sect Alpha are obviously right, as they are the word of the Gods as interpreted by the Alpha Sect's founder and prophet, who spoke only the truth.
However, the beliefs of Sect Bravo must also be right, seeing as how they are the word of the Gods as interpreted by THEIR prophet, who was equally truthful.
Obviously, to an atheist or agnostic, this situation may seem somewhat trite, but to the religious types involved in either side of the debate, it is a very real and relevant conflict, in which both sides are, from their own perspective, entirely right.

And ideally, it should not be clear that the atheist position is right either - there might be strong hints that both sides have some truths to their dogmas.

Such conflicts work best if a neutral observer could say for each side: "I don't necessarily agree with them, but I can see their point."

[Bill Volk]

Instead of a "theme," it may be easier for you to come up with a "pitch." By a pitch I mean one sentence (or less!) that conveys what makes the setting unique or enjoyable. It's more concrete than a theme. This could relate to the setting itself or the PCs roles within the setting. You could maybe try to reverse-engineer a setting from a pitch that sounds exciting to you. Odds are it will sound exciting to like-minded people as well.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

Maybe you could think of it less as there being no clear "right" in the argument, and more as there being no clear "wrong"?

Imagine, for example, a religious conflict. The beliefs of Sect Alpha are obviously right, as they are the word of the Gods as interpreted by the Alpha Sect's founder and prophet, who spoke only the truth.
However, the beliefs of Sect Bravo must also be right, seeing as how they are the word of the Gods as interpreted by THEIR prophet, who was equally truthful.
Obviously, to an atheist or agnostic, this situation may seem somewhat trite, but to the religious types involved in either side of the debate, it is a very real and relevant conflict, in which both sides are, from their own perspective, entirely right.

That's no different: neither has an answer that is "right" i.e. agreed upon by all or objectively right.  Both sides should realize this and not get worked up about it any more than spirited debate, otherwise they would be wasting something valuable on an issue that they both know will not be resolved peacefully.  If there are individuals who want to resolve the issue without peace then we have developed a situation with a clear "wrong" because imposing one's views upon another is always wrong.

So here's how I work it out:
An issue with no clear answer: Either ignore it or peacefully debate it.
If someone has moved beyond peaceful debate: Stop whoever it is.  If you cannot stop them and the conflict does not affect you then leave it alone to be resolved by the participants (or until everyone is dead).

So thinking like that I can't wrap my head around those sorts of conflicts other than as the stereotypical "obviously silly issue perpetuated by people who need to be taught a Good Moral Lesson" type of Saturday morning plot.  (I see real conflicts of this type this way too.)  I'm just incapable of taking them seriously enough to figure out how to use them in any other way.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

And ideally, it should not be clear that the atheist position is right either - there might be strong hints that both sides have some truths to their dogmas.

Such conflicts work best if a neutral observer could say for each side: "I don't necessarily agree with them, but I can see their point."

If no one has a clear answer why is anyone fighting about it?

[Matt Larkin (author)]

Maybe you could think of it less as there being no clear "right" in the argument, and more as there being no clear "wrong"?

Imagine, for example, a religious conflict. The beliefs of Sect Alpha are obviously right, as they are the word of the Gods as interpreted by the Alpha Sect's founder and prophet, who spoke only the truth.
However, the beliefs of Sect Bravo must also be right, seeing as how they are the word of the Gods as interpreted by THEIR prophet, who was equally truthful.
Obviously, to an atheist or agnostic, this situation may seem somewhat trite, but to the religious types involved in either side of the debate, it is a very real and relevant conflict, in which both sides are, from their own perspective, entirely right.

Well put.

To expand a little, in speaking of inner conflict of a character (which applies to inner conflict of a setting), the reason to get worked up over two mutually exclusive "good" things is because you have a strong reason to care about both. It's what makes choice meaningful, and choice is not only the essence of playing a roleplaying game, but also an important aspect of conflict (the essence of fiction).

I say this in this way to try to get away from the idea of two sides of an issue having a rational debate in which the issue can be resolved--there is no good resolution to the issue, and often, the same person is plagued by both sides.

Or alternatively, you may have the extremist characters who represent a single side of the issue. These characters are almost certainly erring in some degree, because they cannot find a balance between meaningful values.

[Bill Volk]

Regarding conflict in settings, having sympathetic characters on both sides of a big conflict is all well and good, but I would recommend trying to follow this rule:

Make it possible for the PCs to make decisions and have an effect.

Don't punish them for picking a side. I've been in one or two games where the politics were so gray-on-gray and the consequences for any course of action were so grim that there was no possible right answer. We were left with nothing to do. I'm lucky I wasn't playing a paladin, because it would have been literally impossible to keep my paladin abilities no matter what I did. The DM didn't just railroad us; he railroaded us into a dead end and tipped the train over.

So, instead of conflicts with no right answer, maybe you could allow for multiple right answers? We get enough unresolvable conflicts in the real world. They become tiresome.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

....in speaking of inner conflict of a character (which applies to inner conflict of a setting), the reason to get worked up over two mutually exclusive "good" things is because you have a strong reason to care about both.

You have a strong reason to care about both separately but not both at the same time?  If you can't choose then why stress yourself out working it over?

I say this in this way to try to get away from the idea of two sides of an issue having a rational debate in which the issue can be resolved--there is no good resolution to the issue, and often, the same person is plagued by both sides.

So why are they trying to resolve it, then, if there is no resolution?

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

...instead of conflicts with no right answer, maybe you could allow for multiple right answers? We get enough unresolvable conflicts in the real world. They become tiresome.

Exactly: if there's no resolution then why bother fighting over it?  What does it get you?

[Steerpike]

[blockquote=SilvercatMoonpaw]You have a strong reason to care about both separately but not both at the same time? If you can't choose then why stress yourself out working it over?[/blockquote]Because those two choices, even if both superficially "good," might be mutually exclusive.

Take Hamlet.  On the one hand hand he could choose to do nothing and pacifistically weather the injustice of the world, choosing not to take revenge thus preserving his soul's purity and not contributing to the cyclic violence and death in his world.  From one perspective, this is clearly a good choice.

On the other hand, this does nothing to address his uncle's crimes, and would be termed a cowardly option from the code of masculine honor deeply ingrained in Hamlet - just as deeply as the Christian code of non-violence.  Avenging his father's death and righting wrongs (even at the cost of his own soul) also seems like a "good" option.

Trying to peaceably reason with Claudius, get him to abdicate the throne and give it to Hamlet, doesn't comprise a realistic third option given the situation.

Clearly Hamlet cannot both do nothing and take revenge, so of course he's going to "stress himself out" about it (hence all the soliloquies).  This choice has meaning because it has consequences: it isn't just as an abstract decision or a theoretical one, but a decision that will affect the world (Claudius lives or dies, Hamlet does or doesn't marry Ophelia, etc).  Even though it's an internal conflict - choosing between two different codes of behavior, two different perspectives - it will have real or external consequences, and that makes it meaningful.  The conflict and the challenge is in trying to weigh those choices against one another or devise a different system for evaluating them both or picking one over the other.  Extremism (always blindly choosing one side over the other) is very dangerous because it's action without consideration - and that kind of thought tends to perpetuate itself through ideology.

I'm not saying the Hamlet scenario is always the case or that peaceful diplomacy isn't a good thing.  But sometimes complex situations don't have neat resolutions, and refusing to worry about them doesn't help either.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

Clearly Hamlet cannot both do nothing and take revenge, so of course he's going to "stress himself out" about it (hence all the soliloquies).  This choice has meaning because it has consequences: it isn't just as an abstract decision or a theoretical one, but a decision that will affect the world (Claudius lives or dies, Hamlet does or doesn't marry Ophelia, etc).  Even though it's an internal conflict - choosing between two different codes of behavior, two different perspectives - it will have real or external consequences, and that makes it meaningful.  The conflict and the challenge is in trying to weigh those choices against one another or devise a different system for evaluating them both or picking one over the other.

So how do you make decisions like that?  Because all I can come up with is in that situation you're either stuck and nothing's gonna happen (which would be bad for an RPG), or you make a choice.  And the way you put it those aren't the only outcomes.

[Bill Volk]

Imagine if Hamlet were an RPG instead of a play. Kind of like The DM of the Rings. The players might just kick in the door of Claudius' bedroom, kill him and take his stuff. Or they might try to investigate the murder until they have enough evidence to disgrace Claudius, if they're more keen on roleplaying than munchkinry. Or they might decide to go off the rails, make friends with Claudius, see if he can hook them up with some free ear poison, then maybe buy some ghost touch weapons and put Dad to rest. The one thing they will NOT do is angst over the decision like Hamlet did. If they get frustrated, they will blame you, the GM, not the NPCs.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

Ah, good old violence.  If it can't solve something it means you haven't killed enough people yet. :axe:

The one thing they will NOT do is angst over the decision like Hamlet did. If they get frustrated, they will blame you, the GM, not the NPCs.

Yeah, this is kind of where I stand: the issue seems too complex to foist on someone and expect them to really be able to do anything about it in the time frame and information load of an RPG.

[Epic Meepo]

A theme is often expressed as something vs. something else.

For example example, in Eschaton the main theme is fate vs. free will.

For another story I'm working on, it's Progress vs. Tradition.

Others might be love vs. duty, or that kind of thing.

And don't forget ninjas vs. pirates!

Actually, I'm fond of choices where it's just a question of priorities. Doing justice to angst-ridden decisions about right and wrong and personal codes of honor is too time-consuming. But consider this decision: two allies are facing difficulties, and you only have time to provide assistance to one of them. There will be a moment of debate as the PCs decide which ally to help out. But after that, the issue is resolved and you can move on to the action as the PCs provide assistance to one or the other of their allies.

Of course, that's just a short-term, situation-specific internal conflict, so I'm not sure you can use anything like that as the theme of a campaign setting. At best, it would serve to remind you that you need to include potential allies for PCs in addition to potential adversaries, and should include incentives for PCs to provide assistance to their allies from time to time.

[Drizztrocks]

If your a DM, ask your players for lots of suggestions. Of course you're not going to build directly off of them, especially if their too ridiculous to even consider, but just use them to try to come up with ideas.

 If your not a DM or just don't like this idea, try a different approach. Look through Campaign Guides, watch some fantasy/sci-fi movies, browse through other settings here, and just try to scrounge up ideas. And the main thing is to not be afraid to start posting your ideas. If your to hesitant or are afraid that people won't like them, my advice is simply that it is not ever going to be in any way perfect. If your throw your ideas out there, especially the original ones, they'll catch on pretty quick.

 My best advice, however, is to draw a map. Get a blank peice of computer paper and decide what your heading for: a continent, entire world map, or even a galaxy map of lots of different planets. Then let your ideas flow onto the paper. Even if your not good a drawing maps, just draw it, and it will naturally spring your thought process. A continent, for example, should be started with a basic outline of the continent. Then add in circles and lines inland for lakes and rivers, and little triangles where you want mountains. Add forests and deserts, volcanoes, tundras, other geographical features. Then sit back and think about what should go where. Try this, because its exactly what i did for my first setting.