Triple Entente

[Malachi Lemont]

Here's my idea:

The world of Ulternum involves three powerful nations that have recently come to dominate, or at least influence, everyone in the world. For now, the three nations are allies, but as land and resource become scarce, many residents of Ulternum foresee a devastating war in the near future.

I would like for this setting to focus on an ideological conflict between three governments - but not necessarily three ethnicities or three peoples. Each nation would contain a variety of cultures, languages, beliefs, and customs. But each of the Big Three also has a strong leader (or set of leaders) trying to unify the people toward a common goal. This is more of a "jumping-off point" for you to build a world - I am just laying the foundation for a story. Do with it what you will.

The three nations have much in common, as already mentioned. Each contains a diverse mix of people, a strong military, and a government with ambitious goals. But each nation needs to have its own unique, defining characteristics that sets it apart from (and establishes conflict with) the other two.

Do you think this would work for the backdrop of a setting? The world could be anything from bronze age fantasy to magitech to cyberpunk - as long as there are (at least) three distinct powerful nations. Do you think 3 is too few superpowers? Should there be 4 or 5? I think 6 is definitely too many. Any suggestions?

I want to avoid portraying the nations as stereotypes like "good, bad, and sketchy," or "socialist, fascist, and capitalist," but I want them to have notable differences. Nations could be differentiated by any combination of the characteristics below:

- attitude toward science
- attitude toward religion
- type of religion
- historical longevity
- legitimacy of power
- degree of economic inequality
- gender roles
- government's goals for the future
- popularity of current government
- attitude toward foreigners

Please offer any ideas on how to craft a plot out of this "Triple Entente" idea. Thanks so much.

[Vitruviansquid]

Perhaps the three nations are allies because they banded together against some threat in the past, and the bond they have as well as the interdependencies they established aren't fragile enough to break quite yet.

However, each nation sees itself as having played a different role in defending against the threat, and each has a different vision for the future of the world that they assumed was shared by the others.

For instance, Nation A contributed the most soldiers, suffered the most deaths, and sees itself as having been the leader of the effort against the threat. Its people have grown used to desperate measures for desperate times, and see themselves as the natural world leader due to having done the most to save the world. They see the other nations as weak and cowardly, despite acknowledging their contributions against the threat, because those other nations did not suffer as much or fight as desperately as they did.

Nation B, on the other hand, remained relatively unaffected by the threat, but contributed something without which the allies' secret weapon would not have worked. Perhaps the scientist who designed the weapon was born in Nation B, or maybe the weapon only runs on a substance that can only be obtained in Nation B. In any case, Nation B believes itself to be the natural world leader because it provided the MacGuffin that saved the world. It feels the other nations are not as clever as they are or technologically advanced for not having thought up the secret weapon, and that they should steer the course of the world because rule belongs to the smart.

Nation C needs not justify its role as the first among equals because they've been that for the alliance since its inception. Naturally, since they proposed the alliance and brought the world together in the first place. The headquarters of the alliance, its centers of communication, and all of its most important conferences were held in Nation C. They see themselves as peacemakers, diplomats, and lords, the only ones who could lead the world in peace, as it did in war.

[Malachi Lemont]

I like this a lot. Thanks for the quick response. I'm definitely seeing the World War II here. From the way you described it, I'm guessing you intended (maybe subliminally) that A is the Soviet Union, B is the United States, and C is Great Britain. Parallels like this are good, as long as we keep them subtle. We could tweak other things like religion and geography so that Nation A, while resembling the Soviet Union in its role in the war, might have a polytheistic religion like the ancient Greeks, and be situated on a fertile tropical-subtropical subcontinent like India.

Not that we should just assign random cultural traits to different countries for the sole purpose of "mixing it up." Each nation could have an underlying principle. For example, with A, it could be the defense of tradition and honor, For B, innovation and progress, and for C, philosophy and religion.

Edit: Maybe two more nations - D and E - that are definitely not superpowers, but still influential, could make for a cooler scenario.