The Problem with Perpetual War Settings in Fantasy
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.ค. 2024
- In this video, we explore why endless conflict can lead to narrative stagnation and provide actionable strategies to introduce depth and variety into your stories. Discover the hidden pitfalls of perpetual war settings in fantasy storytelling and learn advanced techniques to create more dynamic and engaging narratives.
If you find this video helpful, please consider giving it a like, and don’t forget to subscribe to the channel for more content on storytelling, worldbuilding and fantasy writing.
#Worldbuilding #WorldbuildingAdvice #WorldbuildingGuide #WorldbuildingTips #Storytelling #StorytellingAdvice #StorytellingGuide #StorytellingTips #FantasyWriting #CreativeWriting #WritingAdvice #writingtips
00:00 Perpetual War Issues
00:27 War's Hidden Flaws
03:39 The Cost of War
07:19 Beyond Battle Scenes
09:51 Debunking War Necessity
12:15 Dynamic Conflict Ideas
Transform Your Fantasy Writing in Just 5 Minutes a Week: Sign Up for the Tale Tinkerer Newsletter here => thetaletinkerer.com/newsletter/
That's usually why when I make a homebrew, I specifically have it set during the eve of a war. I never told my players when the said war is going to kick off, and the wars are generally kept in a specific region of my continent. This allows my players to visit the war-torn countryside of two warring petty kingdoms while at the same time adventure in kingdoms and empire untouched by the wars.
Very true. While I enjoy an epic battle, even thinking back, for the most part, the battle part is glossed over and than the focus shifts back to the main character(s) and their actions and impact on the fight.
Even is war is an element of the story I've noticed the common theme of trying to prevent the war, end the war, or it's after math.
It's as if the "war" is a background character. We're aware of them and the destruction they, can, are, or have caused. But, we never actually see them.
Instead focusing on the wars impact that it has on the main character(s) rather than the actual war itself.
"Instead focusing on the wars impact that it has on the main character(s) rather than the actual war itself." That is at least what I have preferred so far, yes :) I'm sure there are amazing stories out there where war is the main focus and represented in a great and engaging way. I haven't found any such story myself yet though. I've always felt that a lack of character depth/focus eventually became evident to me.
Perpetual war doesn't necessarily have to be perpetually hot war, with massive battles constantly raging. It can be more of a cold war - it can consist of political, economic, and cultural competition that doesn't regularly rise to the level of violence. Persistent lower level conflict, with all the messiness that derives from it, can be a lot more interesting than a massive, epic war. I have a long term project that I will probably never finish in which I have a fantasy world that went through a massive, destructive world war in the distant past - basically the magic equivalent of a nuclear war. Afterwards, the surviving societies regressed, fragmented, and in some cases, rebuilt and began to make progress again. In the post-war period, two major powers arose. Their relationship is complex, and they have gone through cycles of cold war, localized skirmishes, and periods of relatively cordial relations. Trade binds them together, helping to prevent relations from becoming so bad as to create the conditions for all out war, but unresolved disagreements and cultural differences prevent them from becoming allies. Meanwhile, smaller powers off to the side exist in a world with ever-changing alliances, occasional petty conflicts and localized wars, and varying levels of meddling from the greater powers. A messy situation like this of persistent low level conflict with occasional flare-ups provides a nice setting for political intrigue, diplomacy, corruption, tense situations that feel close to erupting into violence, and the occasional small but nasty battle. It is a situation that doesn't feature perpetual, all consuming conflict. For most people, daily life goes on as normal while conflicts fester in the background, out of sight and out of mind, until something unexpectedly blows up in their faces. I'm not drawn to grand, epic, profound scenes of idealized warfare, with knights in shining armor meeting on the field of battle and fighting according to strict rules. I prefer complicated, petty little messes that can catch characters off guard and drag them into something that they never wanted to be involved in.
Sounds very much like something that has seen some thoughts put behind "everything" (you never can account for actually everything of course :) )
Great point bringing up schools.
What happens when all your young men can’t read, write or be functional members of society because all they know is war?
Gangs would form from the now unemployed soldiers. And what men are left to stand against them???
You always kick my brain into overdrive with ideas. 🔥 🧠 🔥
Thanks again. 🙏
I'm glad to hear that the video provided some inspiration - thank you for taking the time to comment :)
As good as 'The Song of Ice and Fire' is, I have the feeling that however it will end, the most interesting era is the one that follows.
Westeros is in ruins, in parts are depopulated. Many, is not most, combat capable people are dead. And while I think we didn't see it, I think a lot of the food that was stored has been lost to the war.
And now the winter comes. Apparently a long winter.
Will the new king be able to distribute food? Is there enough food? Should the dire wolves range further south with the cold, who fights them? Which settlements are even defensible against hungry wild animals or raiding neighbours?
Can the kingdom pay back the loan from the Iron Bank of Braavos? Or will there be an invasion as the Bank does everything needed to recoup the money? Like raiding settlements and enslaving people?
I'd say the real battle for Westeros is just beginning and it will be a long one. As long as the winter.
And what about the eastern continent? After all that happened, what will be the consequences there?
By the way, the same goes for the aftermath of Lord of the Rings if you think about it. The consequences of the war and it's residue. If you go with the book, even the Hobbits can't go on living as they had after the takeover from Saruman and the men he brought with him. And so on.
As you said, war can make up a good story, but the aftermath? There may be even better stories there.
I couldn't agree more about this: "As good as 'The Song of Ice and Fire' is, I have the feeling that however it will end, the most interesting era is the one that follows."
Definitely looking forward to the book ending (especially considering how they failed in the TV show the last few seasons) but exploring the aftermath of all this could really be something exciting :)
This is SUCH a good take on these settings, I've always thought they just felt... Shallow
I'm glad to hear there was something useful for you in the video - thank you for leaving the feedback :)
Eternal war can be feasible, if the war is a incarnation of idea of War, and you aren't counting the physicality of actually doing wars.
Yeah... I am gonna present points of view from both sides of the conflict. Not just gonna present as "the other side" as "evil" just because they are the enemy. But it's not really perpetual war, but rather "reoccurring" war.
Perpetual war seems like an interesting setting. Since it encompasses those things you mentioned. Thinking it more like a perpetual battle in some part of the world if you could say. The battle area could become a hellscape of disqusting burnt and degraded bodyparts.
While the rest of the world could really well live in peace, but indeed use a lot of power and resources to keep the battle going on this same field or area for the area. All the political turmoil, loss and sadness of war could be delivered outside of the combat zone.
The ridiculousness of constant war and battle could be the driving force for all those things in the world. Aims to stop the war could cause conflict outside of the area of combat as well. The people who return from the zone could be silent and traumatized and maybe even not there for the combat, but to bring back their dead relatives and so on.
Never thought about a dedicated war zone in a story to be honest. Kind of like the videogame Dark Age of Camelot with three realms against one another and the center frontier(s) representing the battle zone :)
Taking that to the next level where all battle is literally happening in that one zone would leave a lot of interesting story questions to explore. Like "Why is there no war outside the zone?" or "How is it defined who has to go in there?"
:)
@@TheTaleTinkerer One idea for such are might be 1. ceremonial area where battles and wars are waged placed either to contain destructive battlemagic in fantasy.
Or in scifi certain areas are dedicated to space battles due the posible debrie fields those cause.
2. Greater power limits open wars or battles to certain areas tho would not limit scirmisgh by specialist forces.
Well presented!
Thank you, I'm glad that the video was useful for you. And really appreciate the time taken for leaving that feedback :)
When is the last time there wasn't a war, and yet there is an entire world of people dealing with issues unrelated to all those wars.
Depends on the subgenre, I suppose. And media. Now that you are asking, I realize the vast majority of D&D stories I played didn't took place during a war. Those stories are rich in combat scenes, to the point of cliché perhaps, but those are conflicts of smaller scale than wars, usually. Possibly because the rules for battle between large groups are not as well polished as those for singular combat, perhaps.
Those are settings where war exist. It is in the worldbuilding and in the history of nations/races. But the adventures are not about those wars, usually.
Player characters are mercenaries, fighting treats that fall more under the umbrela definition of "crime" than properly consist in enemy activity from another nation. Powerful enough to be considered an "enemy" in a serious war.
Most the episodes in My Little Pony where not about war, either.
Vampire the Masquerade is the typical "Eternal War" setting. But it is a "Cold War" fought in the shadows. Mostly by "sleeping agents", not by proper soldiers. The stories are about self-interest, trying to be alive and not end up sacrificed by some powerful ancient vampire. Or something as powerful as ancient vampires. Theme is self-interest, no self-sacrifice for the sake of patriotism.
Werewolf the Apocalipse, on the contrary, has proper warrior-soldiers in an epic spiritual war against absolute Evil. With all the glorification of war and violence (when done for the right cause) implied by that. But I think Vampire was always more popular than Werewolf, as a tabletop game.
War? A year without War?
What you have to first understand is that war WAS NOT constant - even if there were near continual European wars between France and Britain dating back what, 1000 years at this point (I mean, everything pre WWI just to help clarify); the reality of old war was it was far more seasonal - the people you raised to fight a war were the people that sowed crops, harvested the crops, and so on. Going to war was a very costly affair, that required you to mobilize people away from life sustaining farming - it really isn't until the very late medieval period, into the age of gunpowder that we started to see longer periods of time through the year where you could feasibly afford to go to war - and even then: Until the most modern of wars, war was not fought during the winter - to the point that Enemy Soldiers/Officers would be permitted safe passage through enemy held territory to return home, only to march right back for the beginning of the next year of fighting. You could say, war back then was fought in a more civilized manner.
With the advent of modern optics, and a change in underlying premise of war - the civility went out. But even still, War slows down in winter as the ground becomes wet with rain, freezes, and then snow and ice build up making difficult terrain, cold temperatures make the environment harsh to exist in and a soldiers primary goal is to just stay alive.
The past had a lot of war - but, the past also had different rules of engagement. Retiring from the battlefield and retreat if you found yourself defeated was relatively common. Fighting to the last man standing was a rarity. Knights preferentially captured each other - not killed; in fact the times when knights were largely killed instead of captured are notable BECAUSE of how abnormal that was.
Modern War is a different beast entirely. Modern War can be fought with one guy, commanding a fleet of drones, maintained by a small group of people - and it can be absolutely insanely devastating.
@@formes2388 I understand that just fine. The statement of the video is that you don't need perma-war in order to create dramatic tension in fiction, video games, TTRPGs or whatever. We are IRL in a pretty solid cycle of perma-war. A quick view of world history shows that even when we have a heartbeat or two between, say WWI and WWII where there's "no war", yikes, there's the Russian Revolution/Civil War and gosh knows what else throughout Africa, Asia, Central/South America in the 1918-1939 timeframe.
What I'm also saying is that despite the fact there is some kind of war somewhere on the planet at any given moment, that war is localized. Even though WWII was raging and the USA was hip deep in it on two fronts, Rosie the Riveter back home in Anytown, USA is contributing to the war effort, but she's also going home at night, grabbing some groceries, catching a movie, having a fling with Marvin the Milkman who didn't qualify for military service because of his hip dysplasia, etc.
Perma-war is in no way the only source of dramatic conflict, so it's not worth a video griping about it. Naturally, war is interesting. Ask Tolstoy, Hemmingway, Henty, Clancy and a virtual nation of authors who have written about wars past, present and speculatively future.
Are war stories boring or done to death? Maybe for Time Tinkerer, but there's a lid for every pot. People buy war stories because that's what they find interesting. That's all I'm saying. Some people like it. Some people don't. Some people are bored of it because it's a little too easy to use generational war as a conflict-rich backdrop for a story you might like to write. That's fine. There's plenty of non-war stories available.
Yes,@@formes2388, good point. Sounds odd to me the way we use "civilized" as something that is supposed to be non-violent or less brutal than "barbaric" acts. When a major advantage of civilization over barbarism was always the superior effectivity of civilized nation in the application of extreme violence and brutality in large scale. Rome was able to conquer all that huge territory because it could keep professional soldiers, pay and feed them for the entire years. While the enemies had to go back to their farms at some point.
Civilization frees the man from the physiologic cycles of agriculture in a larger extent than barbaric societies. Not entirely, of course. But enough to make difference.
I believe one significant change between Ancient/Medieval wars and those since the past Civil War in US was is the number of civilians who die. In the past being a soldier was dangerous, now if you must be close of the frontlines of a war your best option would be to be a soldier. Civilians die in larger numbers.
Again, I could be wrong, but as far as I know Russian invasion in Ukraine has been the rare exception. A modern war where more military die than civilians. Israel invasion in Gaza being the extreme oposite of that,
In any case, perhaps all de drones and missiles give us a better image of what war should look like in a high fantasy setting. Those things are not too different from spells, from a panoramic perspective.
Matt Colville has great takes on War and Peace in [D&D] fantasy settings. I suggest you check out his videos.
Thank you, I appreciate the recommendation and will definitely do so when I find some time :)
@TimeTinkerer - It has been 5+ years, and I don't want to misrepresent his words, but my memory summary: we live in an era of relative peace, but history is filled with minor kingdom/Fiftums in constant war with one another. It took literal unification wars to enter eras of relative peace internally, yet faced larger border conflicts with other "super powers" with fellow nation states.
Even times of peace were often ended once a powerful leader passed, and a power vacuum emerged amd cycles continued.
Be it famtasy past, or sci-fi future in Issac Asimov's Foundation novels... "War. War never changes."
@@PaulGaither That quote of "War never changes" is: wrong.
War Changes. Human Nature, and the reasons for war? Our outward justification may change - but at the end of the day, it's about power of "our side". Humans are Tribal, we have in groups (that we protect), and out groups (that we reject). And in times of strife - the in group gets smaller, and the out group gets larger. This, is the nature of humans - and the more the other person looks like us, the less likely they end up in the out group.
War has changed with every major conflict for well, since the first war. And that change has lasted for centuries before a new emerging technology or approach. And the why is fairly straight forward: Small disputes over territory break out all the time, but the investment into them is limited, the risks are limited. But major conflicts? You need a solid edge over your opponent to gain victory - Skirmish brawl combat devolves into organizers phalanx combat. cavalry over takes the value of Infantry. As Cavalry grows - Affordable infantry tactics adapt, and we see the Pike square formation emerge supported by ranged units. As Gun powder weapons become more reliable - they phase out the pole arms, and - threaten the dominance of cavalry, though that remains basically until the emergency of Tanks and Armour - largely at first to move troops, but eventually, as powerful weapons are equipped to them they emerge as mobile artillery and support. After the Great War, we see the emergence of Combined armed tactics - and lightning war. But eventually, we start seeing the modern additions.
While the Russia-Ukraine war is not a "Great" War, it is a war of global significance, and represents the emergence of Drone combat; of information warfare.
So War: War has changed. And that, is without talking about the Nuclear Bomb; the one reason no two world powers have opted to clash directly in closing on 80 years. War in the early years of humanity, up until the 20th century was a very seasonal affair: Winter stopped warfare for the most part, the wet months would bog down artillery. And before that - the season for war was even shorter, with the need of those very men you would send to war, to be around for harvesting crops.
What hasn't changed? Why we go to war: It's always about one, single thing: Power.
Endless war is not the same as an endless cycle of war and conflict. Total War tended not to be a thing until modern times. Was there a total war before world wars one and two? Perhaps some of the Mongol conflicts, or the iron age sieges and sacking of cities (but those sieges sometimes ran for more than decade). ... I agree completely with the idea of writers being realistic about the impact of the wars they are designing. In conflict between nations, an army had more noncombatants than combatants, in most cases. In tribal settings, one side would tend to collapse, and then that tribe would be no more (or rather, some women and children absorbed into the conquering tribe.) Shallow is boring.
"Endless war is not the same as an endless cycle of war and conflict."
That is absolutely correct, and it was a bit difficult to draw the line between those two. I was considering at first to only focus on the worldbuilding aspect of perpetual war settings, which would have made it a bit easier to stay on one side of the discussion but I felt that it provided more value to include the writing aspects of conflict in a broader sense as well.
I hope that the video was still valuable / entertaining this way :)
Can it though, what about the real life hundred years war? It is an interesting read for history's sake, so am sure interesting things can happen in between war.
The 100 years war did include longer periods of peace time in-between as well though, which is exactly my point with the video.
If depicted properly, you could easily create a setting of perpetual war to some degree, but if that means endless fighting, all the time, without accounting for what that actually would mean (e.g. resources, morale, cultural changes, etc) then very likely that setting would fall flat :)
Very often, long term wars (like the hundred years war) were really just cycles of war and peeace (the q00 years were three wars with noticeable periods of peace inbetween). And often even those wars were not constant. The three war stages of the hundred years war often saw some level of conflict at any point, but most war years saw no major campaign.
Alternatively, the 30 years war was onky pissible because each time one participant fell out, another jumped in (Bohemia, followed by Denmark, the Sweden, then France).
Long term wars are always in stages.
"Long term wars are always in stages." that is usually correct, yes, and ideally (unless done differently on purpose) it should be true in stories as well - imho :)
@@TheTaleTinkerer absolutely. I think that adds far greater depth and history as opposed to simple constant battles.
Wars in ye olden times where very limited in scale and duration as well as geographically. The _100-years war_ is just a shorthand for dozens of small incursions and clashes limited to the few months of campaigning season over summer, rarely involved anything larger than 10'000 men in the field and was mostly limited to the disputed counties. An inhabitant of Lyons for example wouldn't even notice there was a war on if nobody told him.
Im writing a story where a country is bejng invaded by an alliance of three countries. The story ends with the war ending, how would avoid some of the issues u mentioned if the invaders are hell bent on annexing the main character's country?
Hey, thank you for sharing. When writing a story where a country is being invaded by an alliance of three others, and the war ends with the story you could consider the following things:
1) Vary the Conflict: While the main conflict is the invasion, mix in other types of conflict. Show internal struggles within the invaded country, like political factions disagreeing on how to handle the war. Or highlight personal conflicts among characters, such as differing motivations or ethical dilemmas.
2) Focus on Characters: Make sure your characters are more than just soldiers. Show their personal lives, dreams, and fears. Let them have moments of reflection, love, and even humor.
3) Impact of War: Don’t just show the battles. Explore how the war affects daily life-families being torn apart, economic struggles, and cultural shifts. Show the resilience and adaptability of people in the face of adversity.
4) Resolution and Aftermath: The war's end should bring a sense of resolution, but also new challenges. Show the rebuilding process, peace negotiations, and how characters adjust to a new reality.
5) Allied Tensions: Even among the invading alliance, there can be tension and differing goals. Maybe one country wants more control or resources, causing friction.
By adding these elements, you can avoid common issues discussed in the video. I hope this helps a bit, and good luck with your story :)
About 4:35, there is the risk you are mentioning, yes. But I have seem in recent times a lot more often the risk that comes from overcompensate to avoid this risk. That is the risk of fall into Flintstones-Jetsons Trope worldbuilding: every war veteran become a modern day war veteran. With modern day issues.
You see, people do not react in the same way to extreme circumstances. Of war or any other kind. And the menu of responses to such situations change with cultural background.
One example: a couple has a child, a young baby, and that baby dies.
If you go for Flintstones-Jetsons Trope in your Worldbuilding the parents "must" be devastated. They probably will not stay together, and if they do their relationship may never recover. Deep depression is to be expected, etc. No one would tell that story exactly like that as recently as 90 years ago. To say nothing about 2700 years ago. If that was the "natural" human reaction to this situation we would not be here.
Humanity would be extinct. A long time ago.
I am sure people felt the loss, but life continued. Most couples had the experience, not once but multiple times. Society was more integrated. People felt support in their communities to overcome the pain. The very fact that it was something you knew other people had experienced (practically all adult couples) and endured was a factor in helping your recover.
And, yes, the stories worked as a healing factor as well. They help shape expectation. You would not find many stories telling you that you are supposed to fall under morbid depression when your child dies. On the contrary.
Because that is now a rare experience for most people, in many societies, it became a experience harder to endure. Or ways to "deal" with the pain, focusing on the "feelings" may be one important factor making us weaker and making situation worse.
We don't need to put all that consideration in a fictional story. Is probably best if we don't infodump any of that.
But I believe (as a reader) that is best when our viking warriors and our space-elves do NOT react to the extreme experiences of war in the exact same way contemporary soldiers of US satellite nations react to the extreme experiences of war.
Very valuable here as well, appreciate it.
I absolutely agree, that writers - depending on the setting - should take into consideration that humans haven't always responded to the same things in the same manner. These emotional and psychological aspects can have a large impact on how someone reacts and acts, as you explain.
When it comes to "risk" and risk avoidance, I'm not advocating to stay on the safer side always. While I focus on educational content exclusively, I obviously highlight a lot of issues, risks or things to avoid but I rarely see anything as impossible to use at all.
It's just important to do things consciously and well-prepared of you decide to tackle something that usually comes across as shallow or polarizing. Even perpetual war settings - to stick to this video here - could be an amazing foundation for great stories. It just requires certain elements to be done properly in order to not fall short - and that is what I've seen is rarely done when such settings are presented :)
Yes, I agree@@TheTaleTinkerer. It is a matter of balance, and, in the end of day, purpose. That famous book of Robert Heinlein and the movie made about (and against) it comes to my mind. In the book Heinlein assumes the classic Greek position about war. War is a natural and necessary part of existence for ephemerals in this Universe, always will be. As long as we remain humans, we will need to account for that.
The book is shaped to mock and contradict that. Taking for granted that war is a bad thing, needless, a problem we can solve and should solve. My sympathy in this debate strongly inclines toward the book, and against the movie.
However, that is a valid debate. And I probably would never find out the book exists if wasn't for the movie.
Is important to have stories (great stories, like those both are) told, in defence of both sides of that "eternal war". In a mental/spiritual/metaphorical sense of "war".
I can see the issue, but the way I see it main problem is that perception demands contrast. We need to have calm moments to feel the tension of battle and vice-versa. It does not necessarily means Eternal War is a problem, because war is not just battle.
You could tell a story about a world where wars of about 2 years happen on average every 3 decades and still have only combat scenes in your story. To the point where it becomes boring. All depends of focus. If you ignore everything that is not battle, you have only battles in your story. If you ignore everything that is not sexual intercourse, you get porn with little to no story in your story. And so on.
There are compelling stories about war time without scenes of battle, or with almost none. Even in the front lines, wars are not battle most the time. Preparation and waiting take most the time.
We can also separate war from peace in space instead of in time. US did basically that since at least World War 2. It is always at war with some very week nations (except that one time, know as WW2, and probably near future with Russia and China) or a few of them. Is so rare for the consequences of those wars to reach US that people of US feel the where "unfairly" attacked at 9/11. Despite their military having the habit of killing a lot more civilians than those who died that day in US. The actions of US military far away from US don't feel "real" for the average person in US and US satellite nations.
That separation in space is one way to have both war and peace in the same setting, at the same time.
So, I think it is POSSIBLE to cook. I don't think it is an easy recipe.
Usually, human condition is defined by day and night, war and peace, and they don't happen at the same time. If we miss war (like most utopian fantasies seems to desire, and hope for) we mutilate what makes us humans. If we miss peace, effect is the same.
To make an internally consistent setting where War is really "eternal", with no truce. Proper war (not this fake, controlled, harmless thing US govern manages to keep going for a long time) . We must consider how it changes human condition. Or how it shaped the condition of our characters, whatever specie they are.
Perhaps a nice metaphor would be to tell a story in a world where there is no day. Only time is night.
At first glance people could be mostly identical to what they are in our reality. But really? Without the extreme diference in conditions between night and day can we believe anyone would sleep? Is that still viable, as far as natural selection is concerned?
And if we change just this minor detail about human condition: the need of sleep. No one sleeps, ever.
Can we still keep everything else unchanged? What a home for people who never sleep looks like?
That can be interesting worldbuilding.
Some great reflections here, thank you.
And yes, it is possible to have an endless war setting and still write a story that includes calmer moments and a focus on characters. That's why I brought up the worldbuilding aspects as well though, since many of these settings (at least in my experience) lack the realism that is necessary to remain immersive.
When resource depletion, social collapse, psychological toll etc. never really ramp up the longer the war lasts, then there simply is something missing - at least for me.
Well,@@TheTaleTinkerer, I must say one thing in your defence here. The author of the most famous (an my favourite) non-fictional book about war would very likely agree with you. A lot of of The Art of War is dedicated to repeatedly advice against start wars if is possible to avoid it. And in favour of end War as soon as possible, once it started.
Wars are expensive.
We can naturally afford to have a fictional society constantly at war, if the spoils of war are the main economic base of economy for that society. But we can have only a small percentage of societies like that in the same setting, if we wish to keep consistency.
Most civilizations must have the role of "prey" in that geopolitics. One cannot have more carnivores than herbivores in a region.
Our story can focus the warrior society. But it should be a deliberate creative choice. Ideally.
Eh, sometimes a character doesn't need development. Everyone doesn't need or has to have a profound introspection and progress. Battles and war are fun and cathartic.
I'm not disagreeing here. That's why I clearly say that even perpetual war settings don't necessarily have to be avoided. They just need proper setup and consideration to not fall flat.
At least I do prefer to see such societies properly represented. I might enjoy some hack & slash in a videogame at times, but from a story, I usually demand more :)
Catharsis is like any emotional response. It can't be repeated over and over with the expectation of a reward.
If you just want that catharsis with no concern for characters, you probably don't need to read a whole book for it, and you probably don't need to make it to the next battle.
Sometimes. But you can have Fun, Cathartic, and Interesting - and Interesting, is where we take a game from being a "I have nothing better" to "I'm showing up every damn session". And what does it take? One line.
Just one line - The Casus Belli. The Occassion for War. That's it. Everything you can imagine branches from that line - it can be a goblin tribe that has been taking over territory being fought back. It can be a kingdom that had stolen land while their enemy dealt with a dragon - and now a war has broken out. You could have the emergence of a powerful religious cult demanding conquest and spreading of their word. Whatever the reason for war - it shapes the world, it gives voice to what is going on around it, the why it took place, and it allows you - if the party pursues it - to contain a self consistent addition to the world without too much effort.
Beyond this - what happens 12 months down the road? Is the fighting still there. Is the war over? Is their fighting elsewhere? Has a new kingdom of fed up lords forced to partake in the wars of deranged kings, simply aligned together forming a 3ed power in the area pushing the other two into minor roles forced to respect the power of the new fledgling kingdom?
So much of good world building is like this, by the way - it's one line, written down somewhere, that gives context to the wider events going on. Even if we never dive deep into it, just that thin facade lets the world come alive in a way it otherwise can not.
I suppose the Warhammer IP stands in opposition to this.
"The Quest for Peace" is a good example of what I have in mind when I say "Flintstones-Jetsons Trope". The utopian notion of ideal human life as absolute absent of violence and war is shared by left and right in US satellite nations. Because they are postcristian (generally speaking) and Cristian image of Paradise is absent of war (but also absent of any meaningful activity. Is basically existence as a tree in a garden).
We must go as far as Ancient Greece in Western Culture (in the proper sense of Western Culture, the one defined by a mix between Hellenic and Jewish-Cristian roots) to find texts that do NOT exclude war from ideal human existence. Where the perfect human society has warriors, and keeps investment in war (but war is not the only important aspect of life, and it is not eternal).
Still, those societies do exist. They are no less "human" than the "Quest-for-Peace mentality societies".
One could say that deprive humans violence, completely, is a way to mutilate humanity. Some have said that.
I don't have anything against the existence of stories build around "Quest-for-Peace" and settings build on the premisse that violence is always bad and undesirable. That we would be best without it, in constant, eternal, peace. I have everything against the elimination of all settings and stories that reject those premisses.
A story with a "quest for peace" at its core doesn't necessarily have to be non-violent. After all, somehow the goal needs to be achieved and that leaves a variety of options, including lots of battle scenes throughout the story.
Even more so, a story revolving around a quest for peace doesn't necessarily have to end with that goal actually achieved :)
Too bad we're in perpetual war irl.