How do you come up with a setting?

[Jürgen Hubert]

The biggest perception gap seems to be between thinking you're right and actually being right.  I don't understand why anyone ever thinks they're right, that sort of confidence is illogical to me: if you can make even one mistake you are always capable of making a mistake in anything you do.  Logic tells me that you should always posit to yourself that what you are doing has a very real chance of being wrong.  You should always have doubt.

OK, let's say you have doubts that your course of action is the right one. However, you think that doing nothing will actually be worse than doing it your way.

Let's get back to the Exalted example I mentioned before. Something must be done to stop the numerous threats to the world - god-like ghosts trying to kill every living being, chtonic faeries trying to dissolve the world in pure chaos, the former Primordial overlords trying to come back and enslave everyone.

But is it really so wise to trust one of the other factions of Exalted? Sure, some of the Solars might seem reasonable - but so did the heroes of the Primordial War, once, and look how that turned out. If you allow them to grow in power, they will dominate the world as they used to just because of their innate abilities - everyone will end up worshiping them.

If you are a Dragon-Blooded, do you dare trust them and reach out of them? Even if they do have the power to help save the world, are you willing to risk getting enslaved by them? Conversely, do you risk wasting your resources on hunting them down when there are so many other foes to fight?

Where is the "right" answer here? The only thing you can do is make a choice and try your best, and the choice must be made now.

[Steerpike]

[blockquote=Silvercat Moonpaw]This is why I see all such conflicts of confidence as stupid: to me no one is ever right enough to justify the actions I see sides taking.

I'm sorry if I'm frustrating to deal with over this issue.
[/blockquote]I actually completely agree with this, and I really wish participants in stupid conflicts would yield to logic.  Unfortunately the lust for certainty and the all-encompassing and arrogant terror at being wrong that grips so much of the population (particularly ideologues and religious extremists/fundamentalists) tends to preclude this for most of the population.  Which, to me, makes for fascinating literary and game material.  I think your frustration with certain aspects of conflict may be linked to your dislike of "darkness" in games: you don't like ignorance, depravity, or cruelty in your games anymore than you like them in real life.  Perhaps I'm twisted, but I'm the opposite: I hate those things in real life, but find them really intriguing in a fictional context.  I'm not trying to change your way of thinking, just trying to understand it - you have a very unique sort of imagination.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

[blockquote=Silvercat Moonpaw]This is why I see all such conflicts of confidence as stupid: to me no one is ever right enough to justify the actions I see sides taking.

I'm sorry if I'm frustrating to deal with over this issue.
[/blockquote]I actually completely agree with this, and I really wish participants in stupid conflicts would yield to logic.  Unfortunately the lust for certainty and the all-encompassing and arrogant terror at being wrong that grips so much of the population (particularly ideologues and religious extremists/fundamentalists) tends to preclude this for most of the population.

Too many people seem to be missing some special perspective somewhere.

I think your frustration with certain aspects of conflict may be linked to your dislike of "darkness" in games: you don't like ignorance, depravity, or cruelty in your games anymore than you like them in real life.'¦'¦'¦'¦'¦'¦I'm not trying to change your way of thinking, just trying to understand it - you have a very unique sort of imagination.

They really just don't seem to translate for me like they do for other people.  Possibly I'm so in touch with my own dark side that it's just overkill to take anything else in.

OK, let's say you have doubts that your course of action is the right one. However, you think that doing nothing will actually be worse than doing it your way.

Ah, now I think I'm getting it:

The key seems to come at the point of understanding how an emotion gets people off there butts:
Negative emotions that motivate other people such as fear and hatred internalize in me and cause paralysis.
Positive emotions that motivate other people instead relax me and cause me to want to do less.
However the statement of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" because it provokes in me annoyance, which does motivate me.  I guess if I want to understand conflict I have to think back to this feeling.

[Jürgen Hubert]

Ah, now I think I'm getting it:

The key seems to come at the point of understanding how an emotion gets people off there butts:
Negative emotions that motivate other people such as fear and hatred internalize in me and cause paralysis.
Positive emotions that motivate other people instead relax me and cause me to want to do less.
However the statement of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" because it provokes in me annoyance, which does motivate me.  I guess if I want to understand conflict I have to think back to this feeling.

That's part of it, but not all.

Sometimes, it is a matter of different priorities. Let's say a fantasy kingdom is besieged on two different fronts - perhaps on one side there is an undead plague, and on the other there is a large Empire that wants to assimilate it.

The military units and the nobles on either side of the kingdom are arguing that their side is facing the greater threat, and that they should get more of the kingdom's resources - quite understandable, since their livelihood and very survival depends on it. What is clear is that the kingdom cannot deal with either threat as long as it splits its resources. Some nobles try to be reasonable about this and desperately find a solution that will somehow help both factions. However, others have seen too many friends, allies, and family member die to their enemies that they feel that any method is appropriate to gain an advantage over their foes, and are willing to sabotage the other faction to get their way. Yes, they shouldn't be doing that - but if you had (for example) seen your children being devoured alive by zombies, wouldn't you also get a bit unreasonable about the whole situation? And there are some people who are in the process of developing a "wonder weapon" (a mighty spell or magical artifact) capable of dealing with the threat once and for all - if only they get some additional resources. Can they be trusted to deliver? And if it actually works, does it have any unforeseen side effects? And what if the Empire has any spies in its midst that can copy the plans? And then there is some faction in the Empire that contacts your group and claims that it wants to establish peace - but right now, they don't have enough power for a coup. Perhaps the heroes would be willing to help?...

The real world is a vast sea of differing priorities and murky agendas. There should be no reason why campaign settings should be any different. It is entirely possible to have a large number of understandable, perhaps even sympathetic motivations - but mutually conflicting priorities. After all, the resources for pursuing various goals are limited, or else our world would be an utopia already. And politics is all about setting priorities, as Obama conceded during one of his debates with McCain during the campaign...

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

The point about motivation is still more important: I work just fine understanding that both sides would get unreasonable, but before I didn't get why.  In your example the key is still an emotion: fear.

[Scholar]

What's still confusing is the second angle and motivation: What prompts people to decide violence/oppression over a more peaceful method?

honestly? convenience.
example:
sure, those native people are peaceful and happy. but they sit on that really rich vein of ore that i need to arm the defenders of my home. so i explain to them, that they should kindly move to the other side of the mountain. but those quaint little guys think that *this* side is holy. of course i know, being enlightened and all, that this is a load of BS. they are heathens and the other side of the mountain is therefore no more or less holy than this one. but they won't see reason and throw rocks at my prospectors. since it would take ages to convince them and i really need to start the strip-mining, i do what a good person of my faith does in an hour of need: send over some kill-teams to wipe the pests off my new mine.
one cornerstone of all violent conflicts is the old truism "might makes right." you don't need to explain when you are bigger than the other guy.
the other one is belief. you don't just think you're right. you know, you feel it, you believe it with all your heart. and this narrows the world down to a series of binary choices, neat and ordered: with you, or against you.
i really envy your idealism, SCMP, if you really rationally think before you act, because most people don't. or they are calculating enough to still go the fast route to achieve their goals, that's how most of our world works. i include myself into the latter part, because even in a peaceful environment like a university, not everyone can be the best. so we all manipulate, scheme, cheat, lie and bully, because at the end of the day, you don't get grades for being nice.

[Jürgen Hubert]

What's still confusing is the second angle and motivation: What prompts people to decide violence/oppression over a more peaceful method?

honestly? convenience.
example:
sure, those native people are peaceful and happy. but they sit on that really rich vein of ore that i need to arm the defenders of my home. so i explain to them, that they should kindly move to the other side of the mountain. but those quaint little guys think that *this* side is holy. of course i know, being enlightened and all, that this is a load of BS. they are heathens and the other side of the mountain is therefore no more or less holy than this one. but they won't see reason and throw rocks at my prospectors. since it would take ages to convince them and i really need to start the strip-mining, i do what a good person of my faith does in an hour of need: send over some kill-teams to wipe the pests off my new mine.

Or more charitably: They don't actually see mountain as holy. Furthermore, they are being oppressed by an Evil Overlord (TM) who prefers to sell this ore for very high prices to finance his Reign of Terror (TM). Surely this guy needs to be removed, right? And surely the locals will be grateful enough for their Liberation to sell the ore at lower prices, right? Everybody wins!

And how that can work out can be seen with the recent mess in Iraq... Sure, Saddam Hussein was an evil, ruthless dictator - but the invaders didn't quite think the consequences of their invasion through because they were too caught up in their own rhetoric. Something similar could very well happen elsewhere...

[SA]

There is no single way I come up with a setting.  It can be inspired by something I've read, a philosophical quandary that's been troubling me, a single evocative image, or even an unusual word that's recently stumbled into my lexicon.

In order for me to feel invested in the creation of a setting, it has to go places I haven't seen explored before.  In fact, I really enjoy challenging myself through their themes, and raising interesting, even uncomfortable questions.  I genuinely don't think there is any limit to what constitutes a "good" setting, as long as you and your audience/players (depending on the medium) are in the right frame of mind.