So my novel takes place some undisclosed time in the future, after a war that will remain incredibly vague. In the aftermath of said war, I want the world to go back to a more primitive society; Scavenger groups, small trade societies, and a more powerful, expanding cult. This cult, which I plan on naming the "Cult of Ares", or "Cult of Flame", or "Cult of Rebirth" (Specify which you think is best), will be a cult consisting of members known as "fanatics", who want to rebuild the world by torching and burning anything in their way. Their appearance will consist mostly of light gear (shirtless, tactical belt, military boots) and weaponry, matches and flare guns. Their tactic will be showering themselves in gasoline, and lighting themselves on fire in case of desperate measures. [EDIT]: I enjoy my idea of kind of a suicidal move to really add to the [figurative] heaviness of the apocalypse, and just how twisted this group is, but I need a better background, and a stronger foundation to explain and detail why and how they can get by doing something like this. Thanks for the insight everyone Any thoughts on this as a post-apocalyptic Antagonist group?
Your cult makes no sense. The world is already torched and burned so what? Did they not think the war did a good enough job and they're there to finish it. Even fanatics make sense in some way, shape, or form.
Considering they're completely deranged, that's as far as the fanatics go. I probably should've specified every detail about said cult, but I'm developing it as I go. Probably shouldn't have said "primary", as they really act upon desperation and improvisation, lighting themselves and their surroundings up.
I'm not sure I understand. Their role and goal have no relation to what the world looks like as the story develops. They, like all other hostile or armed groups in the world aim to kill enemies [To them, everyone is], except they do it through these methods. I see your point though
Some more things I'll add that I hadn't in the OP - -> This cult do not think rationally. They aim to kill anyone in their way, and they specifically rely on fire (This will have some 'religious' relation to the origins of the cult). ->The fanatics are the lowest branch of this cult. I aim to have more "intelligent" ranks that do not kamikaze or kill themselves. Any other questions?
Deranged is not a good enough motive. Even people who suffer from psychosis, which is a symptom of mental illness defined by hallucinations and delusions, have an actual creative process behind their fantasy world. They build their delusions bit by bit. So to say that they're just fanatics, then it's no wonder you can't think of a name for them. There is no name to be had. Look, names are normally derived from some kind of mission statement. To have a name suggests a group as being, in some sense, organized and working towards a goal. To just have them as "deranged" means they're unorganized. In those cases, they wouldn't give themselves a name, but people would give them a name, normally one that is either derogatory or as a warning. That's just human behavior.
This makes sense. I suppose the trouble comes from the fact that I have only a foundation of what I'd aim the antagonists to look like. Do you have any suggestions?
Well, I've never been in combat, but if the enemy is lighting themselves on fire, I'm feeling pretty good about my chances.
It acts more as a situational Kamikaze move. They don't just light themselves on fire pointlessly. They'll do it when it helps ensure they kill their enemy, or if they are in a position of vulnerability. I suppose I imagine it much better than I'm presenting it however.
Okay... Their way to what? That's why your cult makes no sense. Are they trying to put some kind of prophet in charge? Are they trying to punish the world? Do they believe they are in some way special? Are they trying to prepare the world for something? This basic, basic human nature. You're relying entirely on half baked cliches. "I need a cult. I need them to be scary." But you haven't seemed to have thought beyond that.
As I wrote to @Homer Potvin, I'm imagining it much better than I'm presenting it in this thread. It really does look vague the way I presented it.
Are they counting on all their enemies to be near gas tanks? It's amazing difficult to set most things on fire. Trust me, I work in insurance. A lot of people try to set their cars on fire and find its more difficult then it looks. So this as a weapon is nothing short of silly. I hate to say it, but it is. So let's see what people would do when they destroy with fire. Most intentional fires are arson. The arsonist isn't intending on killing himself. He's trying to cause destruction. The only thing that comes to my mind of a person intentionally setting themselves on fire was monks in Tibet who were doing so in protest. Now setting oneself on fire could also be used as a distraction or as an intimidation. "We aren't afraid of anything." Whether its for protest, distraction, or intimidation, it's an attention getting tactic, not one effective as a weapon in and of itself.
Appreciate the help. I like where I'm at to be honest - I just need more research, and for things to link up, and make sense. Thank you
Yeah, I think it sounds like they need some more development, from what you've said so far. Have'em rely heavily on fire, sure, but lighting themselves up definitely shouldn't be a primary tactic. It could easily be the one they're most known for, though, because it's quite batshit, so the news has spread - maybe it's even something that one particularly fervent guy did one time, but the cult has really built that up as part of their image. Maybe they're really into burning effigies. %100 they're really into burning their enemies. But if burning yourselves is common then you're just gonna run outta dudes - especially in an apocalyptic scenario where I'm assuming the population is already severely decreased, and especially when it's only the lowest echelon of them that're into the self-immolation, at that.
Thank you! Yeah, it makes a lot more sense when I imagine it. I'm trying to find examples to compare them to.
The first comparison I thought of is the psycho bandits from Borderlands games, who were (iirc) all driven crazy by, uh ... magical space rocks/goo? They like to set themselves on fire too, and blow themselves up in a kamikaze-y fashion. But they have that kind of vague explanation for their irrationality (magic from space!), and they have the explanation of being video game enemies who repop because the point is that you get to kill a slew of them when it comes to the population issue. If you don't have either of those covered, definitely something to think about. I'm also wondering how exactly you're thinking of a cult, because I have two somewhat differing definitions in my head, but both options also bring with them important questions. You mentioned Ares and the religious aspect, so are they a more traditional cult that worships a divine being of some kind (even if it's a nebulous one)? If they think that they get to go to firebug heaven for going out in a blaze of glory, then the whole strategy is an easier sell. People who believe in the righteousness of what they're doing, no matter how questionable to outsiders, don't need a lot of other motivation. If they buy into the 'magic' aspect of it - and you do have to make it a 'magic' that people would conceivably buy into - then that's really all you need to justify their behavior. Doesn't mean it's a good one, and doesn't mean they're deranged, either. It's probably a pretty desolate world. They've just been sold a god that makes things suck less. Or, are they a more contemporary cult that follows, but doesn't necessarily worship, a person? That's a harder sell, I think. But that opens it up to who the cult leader is, how they formed the cult (convinced people to follow them, grew the following, who their deputies are and why), and on what values the cult operates - because those'll be the leader's values, and you get to explore that character.
It sounds like this is supposed to be what they call themselves, but “cult” is not a positive term. I don’t think a group would use it as part of their name for themselves.
Yep - 'cults' prefer names like brotherhood, society, family and so forth ... although "Brotherhood of the flame" sounds like a David Morrel book
Your first explanation seems to be what I had in mind. I believe I wrote somewhere that I was still developing the cult's background and motives, and this was kind of what I had in mind. I'm looking to develop their "religion" driven motives. Kind of comparable to vikings and Valhalla.
Thought I'd update this with what I've gathered - Ok, so, this cult (name I don't have yet) is a deranged military post-war cult that "worships" fire and uses it to accomplish their goals. In my case [plot], they will attempt to burn any evidence of civilization pre-war [kind of like WWII] to ensure that they may build a tyrannical world of their liking without any physical proof to counter them. Their motive will be this, and this is what will lead them to their suicidal and maniacal ways. Is there anything I forgot to specify?
What will they build a new world from if they've already burned everything? Also wondering how they're going to start fires if they don't have a replenishable supply of gasoline. I think with this whole thing you're edging into explain-the-plot-hole territory. If you want to have a cult that has an affinity for fire, then great... everyone understands fire and the glee of burning things, so no explanation needed. But if you try to explain it as a kind of ethos or justifiable internal logic it'll only draw attention to something that really doesn't make sense on a macro-level. Don't point at the plot holes.
Some good points. I dont plan on being incredibly explanatory with the cult and their background, so I think I can dodge the "gasoline supply" plot hole. Thank you
