we literally have 2 wars going on right now in the real world. there hasnt been a period ever without major nations at war, and it was even worse in the past.
We have more than 2 wars going on. But I don't think any major nations are formally at war with each other. The world is actually remarkably peaceful compared to say the 19th Century. When was the last time a war was fought in the Americas? Does the American invasion of Grenada count?
>When was the last time a war was fought in the Americas?
Tbf there are huge civil wars going on in Mexico and Columbia right now. Just because the actors are often not states themselves doesn't mean they're not wars.
Eh... if we're defining down to "civil disturbances" like... well Haiti is a worse basket case now than it was a decade ago... as being "wars" then I think we can confidently say the world is a good place now.
We're not dealing with anything like the Boxer Rebellion at the moment.
And... I strenuously disagree that Mexico and Columbia are anywhere near as bad right now has they have been over the course of the 20th C. I'd point to Haiti and Venezuela as the "war zones" in the Americas right now.
I mean if you compare the Mexican Drug War to the Mexican Civil War, this is broadly true, but it ignores that Mexico had a long period of relative peace from the 1920s to the 90s. (Ofc, the Zapatistas never really laid down their arms, but they weren't really an existential threat like in the 1910s.) And the Mexican Drug War - which has killed tens of thousands of people, brought the state of Mexico to the brink of collapse and thus cannot really be called a 'civil disturbance' - really caused a noticable drop in public safety and standard of living, both in Mexico and in all of its major neighbors.
And those are just the "wars" that have the official designation. That's not including all the proxy wars and armed conflicts raging all over the world.
I want more war. I'm war maxing. America and Russia probably won't go to war because one nuke and your leaders are all dead. In the short times between better armor and improved weapons, war was less scary, because dying would be harder. Nukes = scary, Armor = fun.
What is your tech level? The better the tech, the more centralised nations become, and the fewer and larger your conflicts will be (generally).
If it’s medieval, have a highly fractured system with absolutely LOADS of Lords/Barons/Earls/Dukes whatever. They will fight eachother all the time, as long as the monarchy above them is weak enough to allow it.
Very low. First generation means a bunch of Adams and Eves are walking around with primitive clothing.
Edit: There is magic that is easy to access which allows easy tool crafting.
So hunter gatherer? In that case you’re looking at extended family units of 50 to 100 people forming tribes, just like in real life, and these would all fight each other for the best hunting grounds, most fertile areas for gathering, and best places to shelter.
Yes, but due to magic, crafting is much easier.
For example, one slightly common magic is attaching two objects together- you can imagine how useful that one ability alone would be.
So they’re hunter gatherers? Without the permanence afforded by an agricultural lifestyle it’s difficult to expand beyond ~100 people. This is generally the maximum amount of people who can get along with each other day in day out without splinter groups emerging.
One of the best ways to cause war is to make them a bit beyond hunter gatherers, as communities are too small and mobile to force a ton of conflict. there will still be some of course, but in general, if you want good, proper, wars, you want a limited resource that one side has, but the other side wants, and the side that has it don't want to trade it for anything that the wanting side has. Yet the side that wants it can't just go somewhere else to get it, so, they have to take it.
Historically this has often been farmland or pasture, mines, water access, gold and other riches
Resources.
So, sooooo many wars are fought over control of ore, oil, water, farmland, and so many other things.
Have something worth fighting over, then give some places more of it than others. Combine that with all your other ideas.
Bada Bing Bada Boom, warfare.
Great suggestion. This may actually work great with one of my mage concepts, ritualists use objects that represent runes instead of runes, and that is dependent on your culture. A rare flower is now a useful magical resource, despite lacking inherent magical properties, just a belief in what it represents.
(Mechanically rituals work like flywheels- they store immense power and can release it quickly.)
If you’re trying to avoid it, I get it, but religion is pretty proven at starting wars. The different runes and rituals seem like fertile ground for conflict to grow.
Also, there could be conflict over which rune is superior/ creates the most power for the flywheel. As in, “all hail the cauliflower rune gods, those who use starches for their flywheel must convert to the true cause”.
In that vein, the harvesting of the runes themselves could cause conflict, harvesting one may destroy another culture/tribe/race/rune user’s ability to access their preferred rune resource.
Harvesting too much of one rune resource could awake an ancient guardian or something. They then team up with another rune tribe to put an end to the greed.
Idk. Just taking a dump and spitballin. Good luck!
I definitely will have religions. Some wouldn't really be starting wars, but some might fight to end them.
A major religion serves the concept of war, you can probably guess the doctrines.
The biggest religion serves Truth, who is fine with commiting war crimes on Deception cultists (who honestly deserve it) and fighting in wars to protect the honest is fine.
The Divine Aspects are very active, directly speaking to disciples, they aren't exactly subtle (Unless the concept they represent means otherwise.) about what they want, and most want more power, to further their purposes- spreading the concept they represent, so the more faithful, the more martyrs, the more they can spread.
Religious differences is a big one-
The Divine Aspects are any Titan with a soul. The source of all souls is the first divine aspect, Truth, who has an immensely large soul.
Other divine aspects have to 'steal' soul, as only Truth had from the very start. When someone dies in the name of an aspect, their soul is added to the aspect, which is perceived as an afterlife of sorts to the soul. The soul is simultaneously used to create spirit (power) for the aspect. People who served divine aspects also create spirit for the aspect, just in lesser quantities.
So conversion is almost always a universal requirement for religions, but you must kill the other religions so they don't convert your own, or at least keep them out of the government/homes, which might start wars.
Also, the more soul an aspect has, the closer it is to understanding and being understood by it's followers, and the more personality it has besides it's core concept- Truth for example can always hear prayers and hold extensive conservations with many people. Truth isn't just plain honesty- killing is also wrong, unless you are killing followers of deception related aspects. All of it's tenets are heavily related to Truth though, if you must kill someone you must be honest about it. No back stabbing or surprise attacks.
Other Divine Aspects have less souls, and thus less nuances. Let's say Cultivation- farmers might be faithful to such a concept, but why die for it? Only a truly selfless person would do so- some might, but many more would die for Truth.
On the other hand, small cults with extreme devotion would gladly die, but few would serve. Let's say there is an aspect of Deception. The cultists whole life revolves around trickery- even in dying, they will lie, making martyrs. This makes deception more rounded then 'lie a lot', telling the truth is fine if you are using it in the name of deception- to further a lie, or when people think you are lying, deception also keeps it's commandments obscured from non believers, and loves pretending to be truth. Murdering honest men might be a commandment, as well as stealing and other selfish acts when you can get away with it. Perhaps one humorous commandment only known to the higher ups, you randomly ask people in private if they want to be sacrificed- either they are lying or telling the truth, if they are telling the truth, they aren't loyal, if they are lying, they are lying despite risking death, either way, going through with the sacrifice is beneficial, as long as you don't tell anyone why.
Mages are adept at creating expendable magical troops (e.g. golems, constructs, elementals, daemons, undead, etc) which means wars can be started without risking human lives… at least on the side that attacks first anyway.
Don't know if this will work with my specific magic system, but still an excellent idea I will try to incorporate. Still, other authors should use this to increase war. (If they want to that is.)
Makes sense somewhat, but that might also increase trade. Maybe it requires ritualists and thus exclusive materials only some can obtain.
Alternatively, this system poses a huge security risk. Only a few people are allowed to know the locations, otherwise an enemy army could send a bomb down it, so trade is too risky, it can only be used to transport to and from someone you completely trust, and would destroy the transportation to prevent an army from sabotaging it.
1. Low Ressources / Uneven Distribution of Ressources
2. Migratory peoples
3. Low centralisation, feudalism-like
4. Aggressive or Exclusionary ideologies / religions / cultures
5. Warrior societies (where the Warriors are also the ruling class)
6. Climate change has been a historical drive for invasions / colonisation
7. Population displacement
8. Tribalism
9. Important geographic features are often fought over bitterly.
10. New technologies especially ones concerned with ease of travel and communication speed have also been a driver of war as nations are put in contact with new peoples and their culture, but also their contexts and existing conflicts and interests.
Bonus : dunno how magic works in your world but if there are any important places for magic, people would probably wanna control them.
I was interested in the concept of ley lines, it's still a maybe. Symbolism is extremely valuable though- a rare flower that people think represents something, could be used in a ritual to align mana to that concept.
This question sounds concerning out of context lmao
A big one is to limit the ease of acquiring vital resources, and how much of the resources there is to go around through peaceful trade. The "manifest destiny" mindset also was a massive driving force in human history - look at the Crusades.
Strangely this message is missing from my notifications.
I think the main issue will be food. When a scythe can't cut through grass you will have issues with harvesting food. Everything, not just creatures with souls, have spirits and thus essence enhancements- plants and animals you would eat are much harder to kill, and plants can't exactly get up and run, so they are relatively more tanky than animals. (Once dead, eating isn't hindered- it's spirit has already left.)
Wars will be fought for food, because the effort of obtaining it is much more than taking it.
This often results in starvation, which further encourages slavery, or at least indentured servitude. (This slavery isn't a superiority complex, it's an unfortunate necessity, and in most cases slaves are kept fed and protected like any other civilian, though in the early tribes people aren't really paid anyways, 'slaves' can own property.)
Unless you serve the concept of Famine, (why would you do that?) destroying food is generally seen as unforgivable. If anyone served a divine aspect anything like famine, they would likely be executed, and executions aren't exactly quick and painless events, not with everyone being super durable. Anyone depraved enough to enjoy these executions would likely be executed.
As for crusades? Absolutely. There is no clockmaker gods- the divine aspects will answer prayers like you would answer someone talking to you directly- maybe not all the time, but you would certainly try. Also unlike most modern depictions of God, the divine aspects are hardly omnipotent, some are weaker than the greatest mortals.
So imagine a bunch of single minded guys who probably want power to further their purposes, who each have the knowledge that martyrs give them more power than a normal faithful, would almost always want a crusade like event- plenty of opportunities to die for your divine aspect.
Some aspects wouldn't do this- an aspect of Peace. Truth (the greatest divine aspect so far.) would absolutely be against a crusade for no reason, crusades against cultists of Deception would be fine. Also, any crusade of Truth would be incredibly honest- like knocking on someone's door and warning them you are a thief before you take their stuff.
Just being at war is often a net positive in a premodern setting. It creates social mobility through loot and glory, moves wealthy into your territory and gives young people an outlet for their destructive impulses. At the same time, being nasty and warlike makes you safer, because your rivals are busy defending themselves instead of launching attacks of their own.
It would work, but there needs to be a first motivation to do so. How can I make war beneficial to everyone, or at least the people who matter? (leaders.)
Exactly. They had tools to cut down trees. So they cut down trees, built boats, and sharpened tools.
And then went to find what they *didn't* have.
It might be fun to make up a city who is basically Revenge raiders. They lived in beautiful, lush mountains that were logged basically to Extinction, leaving these people living in caves and Mining out iron with nothing but stories of the beauty they lost. So now they go in war bands to the city next door and "take back what's theirs."
You don't really need to. But honestly if you just have a place that is the only place that produces some type of resource that is essential to most societies, they'll fight over it constantly
Eh, same as any of the mentioned ones:
Food, resources, tactical advantages.
My worlds are as unforgiving as they are wonderous. Operate on the logic of "Sure, magic CAN do anything, the problem is nobody knows what it WILL do."
In exchange for everyone having magic that they can use and develop how they desire, there's peril everywhere: Monsters that spawn as function of the world infinite in form and make but all posssed by sheer animal instincts to destroy, crazy biome-specific weather like Meteor, Lava, or Poison Fog seasons, areas where the very dimensions are unreliable to the point where land and sky are not always parallel, places where the things living in the dark corners of your own mind come to life and try to kill you.
One big advantage of the Territorial Dispute approach that it can allow for a lot of creative freedom in terms of "Yesterday's Enemies are Today's Friends." Even if you want pragmatism to rule.
'places where the things living in the dark corners of your own mind come to life and try to kill you.'
Imagine a field. In this field there is long grass dotted with flowers, and a single tree, as well as a large beast of unimaginable horror that can enter reality to eat people who imagine it.
Introduce or highlight more conflict. War doesn’t have to always be on a national scale. For the longest time warfare historically would have been clan against clan.
I like this. Small wars fought every harvest would make even more sense considering how low risk it would be. I imagine that in such minor wars of stealing food, some clans could consider it so normal, it is like a fun event. Sometimes people die, but in most cases they are captured and ransomed for food. War between distinct cultures and religions wouldn't be as civilized.
About slavery, each religion serves a divine aspect. Once religions become reasonably sized and stabilized, I can't think of any reason for most concepts to disallow slavery. A divine aspect of Freedom would definitely disallow slavery, and as it obtains more martyrs, it could develop into freedom for others. (Martyrs' souls are added to the divine aspect they serve.) Out of some other concepts the divine aspects represent, I think most would encourage slavery of others. (The most powerful aspect, Truth, would see keeping others as slaves while not being enslaved yourself as dishonest, and therefore a sin.) Any divine aspect representing any form of resource gathering might find slavery acceptable, but for crafting products, the craft might be deemed sacred, and a sin if done wrong, so those religions would have slaves to do resource gathering for the crafts. A divine aspect representing the concept of war might encourage taking trophies to remember past conquest- slavery is just another form of trophy. The only aspects I see disallowing it would be heavily developed 'virtue' concepts- Honor, Loyalty, and Protection may see slavery as a violation of their respective concepts, but may be fine with others doing it to those who 'deserve' it. (According to each aspects' judgement.)
The more martyrs an aspect has, the more nuance it has. Freedom with few martyrs will take freedom literally, but I can see freedom of mind being a later, more nuanced form.
Wars are restricted to things like "Counting coup" or other relatively bloodless endeavors. Mostly a cultural thing, but it allows for more frequent skirmishes because there's a whole lot less death even if the injury rate is still high.
Wars have to be frequent because the population breeds like *crazy* and there's a high survival rate to adulthood. Or conversely, the population hits a very low limit due to the environment, and this means excess population builds very rapidly.
There's a sudden dramatic stressor on the population -- maybe war only recently became common due to societal collapse, or the recent *Pax Imperia* recently ended as the power that enforced it on the population is gone.
Perhaps the group that recently gained power secretly is still weak, and has devised Hunger Games-style conflicts to keep accelerating their power consolidation while their competition is kept off balance.
Conversely, in a world that just got conquered by a massively overpowered enemy -- think Cthulhu or terminators or billions of zombies, for example -- but the population was so large that despite the end of global or national levels of resistance, there's still plenty of communities yet to be overrun.
Also, perhaps the consequences of war are massively mitigated somehow -- the world is a simulation so you can always respawn, or you can simply be ressurrected / transplanted into a new body, making death usually an inconvenience unless they "lose your data" somehow.
EDIT to add: in a multi-sapience world (ie, not just humans, but dwarves, elves, orcs, et al), some species may be dramatically more suited to either certain environments or endeavors. Perhaps one species wants to enslave another species that are hardier in radioactive environments, or perhaps a species can work for much longer with lower food/water consumption, while also less likely to be able to resist subjugation when captured They have their own kingdoms and can hold off enemies bent on full conquest, but have to fight lots of skirmishes from those same enemies trying to steal their citizens (or fight the occasional war to retrieve some of their kin, while never being successful enough to end the cycle of raids on their population outright).
In the same multi-sapience world (universe?), perhaps there's so many different species that no one species can fully dominate, but there's nothing like the cooperation you see in D&D and LOTR -- no such thing as human/dwarf or orc/goblin alliances (at least not at the beginning of the story).
Do you think the increases durability of all life, including things you would eat, would effect war? This durability is lost upon death.
Also, animals are even faster, with more stamina, better senses and better stealth but people also have these benefits, and often in greater scales.
Plants though are absurdly durable, their spirits only ever use vitality essence or maybe mana essence, and only rarely.
If crops are hard to harvest, and animals can't be killed or crippled in one shot, yet food needs remain the same, how is war effected?
Hm... I assume increased durability also means you don't starve as fast.
Ancient battles tended to end in victory when one side or the other "broke ranks and fled". Increased durability due to magics (spirits, whatever) would mean the battles could last a whole lot longer, especially since it would not be apparent that one side was weakening for some time.
Wars might actually decrease either in frequency or scale, simply because fighting might not gain enough benefit if you're spending days on end trying to defeat your enemy.
Alternately, since you're talking about using spirit to gain more spirit... you might get a "professional warrior" class that only fights war; they skirmish frequently against fellow fighters in their army to gain strength and then go out to fight the next war they're assigned to. However, they may not be likely to attack massed groups -- if a warrior is extremely rare albeit potent enough to win a 1x1 fight, and even amateur fighters are very durable, the risk of getting taken down by a mass of amateurs (and the amateurs developing some power) may not be worth it. What you might get there is a warrior class that only fights other warriors not because of any sense of nobility, but a sense that war needs to be kept to the warrior class to avoid others from gaining the spirit skills.
*Power system; Power is gained quickly by action- nobody gains magic by doing nothing, but fighting is a action packed.*
By this one, were you trying to say striking first gives you a massive advantage? Like charging magics for battle is such that starting to charge means you have to use the charge or it's wasted (or possibly even injurious if not used)?
Early military writers thought that air power would force nations into starting wars proactively -- they thought air power had no good defense, so nations would build up huge fleets of bombers and then attack before their enemy could build up enough to strike. They didn't know about missiles and other defensive weapons that could block air power, plus they overestimated the value of strategic bombing. Still, there could be a logic there if there's no good way to stop an attack once it starts.
Here is the mechanical reason:
You have a thing called a spirit. (It is not your soul, but heavily connected to it.) Spirits contain essence channels, forming a spirit web. Essence channels are like muscles- using them makes it grow. So if you fight in a war, your vitality essence channel might expand, making you more durable forever. If you do target practice or carve wood, your dexterity essence channel will grow. The people only know when you do something you get better at it, so do that thing if you want to be good at it. (Better than others.)
I've thought about this before. My setting is a landlocked valley blocked from ocean access and trade with the world by a hostile state.
It has multiple empires, dozens or more countries ranging in size from large mappable states to city-states. There are possibly hundreds if not thousands of stateless tribes, raider groups, lord armies, religious groups/orders, mercenary groups, slavers, etc.
There are multiple sapient species like tigers, jaguars, bears, foxes, wolves and humans, among others I haven't mentioned. These are all omnivores or carnivores(no sapient herbivores). They don't each have a faction/country like in typical fantasy worlds. Each may have multiple states among themselves or be mixed in other states. Tribes and states dominated by the same species may fight each other for control. They may fight factions of other species. They might team up with a faction filled with other species to raid or conquer a different faction of the same species. Being the same species doesn't grant privileges. There will certainly be those that prioritise their own species over others, that's expected. There will be those that prioritise their own culture over others of the same or similar species, that's also expected. Neither of these factors change much in the grand scheme of things. Even when slavery is concerned, it doesn't matter. Different species? Fair game. Same species? Fair game. Like the Romans, slaves are slaves.
There are generally wars for territory, trade routes, resources or opposing ideas. Travelers and convoys are often robbed of valuables like firearms, materials, jewels and automobiles(exotic and expensive, also useful). As a result, many people are trained in defense and the use of weapons. Trains may be armed and guarded as well. There are also raids to steal livestock from other factions too.
The technology varies very widely between countries because of how protective they are and just because of the expense of acquiring and using some technologies. The less wealthy factions are closer to a medieval or early modern equivalent level. Their best weapons may be some large cannons and basic guns(still capable of warfare in their own right). The wealthiest states, however, have access to airships, fighter planes, [armoured trains](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_train), [landships](https://cdna.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/045/437/790/large/chase-schaake-stilldrygrasslands.jpg?1642709267), modernised bows and crossbows, metal alloy and ceramic armour tested against the strongest of bullets, guntrucks, [armoured cars](https://www.military-history.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Ferret-armoured-car.jpg), melee weapons made with superior techniques and materials, more advanced firearms(No full auto. They may be bolt action, lever action, semi-automatic rifles or crewed machine guns mounted to legs or vehicles due to size and weight). The most advanced empires have even made *[artillery trains](https://youtu.be/_0dN7AHOGJs?si=53mZGMm2mlAeAtsb)*, trains that can fire artillery at the enemy and act as battleships on land. The common soldiers tend to get the less powerful weapons in many armies such as bows and crossbows. The higher soldiers, particularly those of nobility like knights get access to better rifles, better armour, better shields, better made polearms and other melee weapons, and the higher chance of commanding an armoured vehicle like a landship. Where an army falls in this range depends on the resources and connections. A poor army with resourceful allies can get the logistics and access required to make use of better weapons and machines. City walls, fortresses and castles are also fitted with machine guns and anti-aircraft cannons.
The technology is a combination of [Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind](https://youtu.be/IV6k5_K7_Ko?si=H0cFkEWanGX1Ypp8) and [Castle in the Sky](https://youtu.be/J6vV31TDYLg?si=4MRJVXMciN07rGb6) with the idea that the cultures of my world would put some kind of spin on these in terms of physical appearance or execution method, as well as altering designs for different purposes or goals. This could also apply to personal automobiles which could have more distinct cultural touches and be rather rare for those not able to afford them.
The idea of lots of wars happening in my setting gives leeway for many kinds of scenarios that I could think of.
Lapis_Wolf
They're just humans, regular humans. Plus, they're one of the newest sapient species in the region, coming from other continents in the last few hundred years.
Lapis_Wolf
Just do what we do irl. Have a few powers where people are relatively safe because they have massive militaries. Have them not want to fight directly because they don't want to get their hands dirty, so most of the world consists of smaller nations fighting proxy wars on their behalf while the big powers judge them for being so violent. Easy.
wars are always ongoing, although with what you mention it in other comments seems you're talking about large wars akin to the world wars, or the Napoleonic wars, or the 7 years war, between major powers then you have to avoid WMDs. Things like nukes cause M.A.D (for those that don't know, that is Mutually Assured Destruction), in short they cause a large hesitation amongst nations about causing wars, as there is always the fear that one nation will launch a nuclear strike, and the other will respond in kind.
At least in my world, M.A.D doesn't occur after WW2 because nuclear tech doesn't advance that far. It results in major nations not having that hesitation to go to war, at least not on the scale of M.A.D.
technically any WMDs can result in M.A.D, nukes are just the IRL example of that. If your world have magic or sci-fi technology, there will be some other kind of WMD, perhaps a spell or something like an anti-matter bomb and the like.
MAD won't exist. It technically could exist, but won't. While a human with an absurd amount of agility essence can never go more than 40 MPH (Theoretical maximum for perfect conditions and perfect human speed.) there is absolutely no limit to how hard to kill someone can become.
In other words, by the time nukes can exist at all, there will be people who can survive it, likely the most powerful people on earth, a nuke wouldn't even scare them. Of course, there are no such people currently, as the world is only a few decades old.
The greatest equivalent to MAD would be extremely powerful rituals- the amount of time, people, and resources it would take would be absurd, but possible. Even then, you can't really move rituals around, it would have to be built secretly in enemy territory, which would be impossible.
As for spells? Once again, by the time people are capable of casting spells large enough to outright destroy a city, the warriors inside will likely be durable enough, and have enough enchanted gear to be fine.
The only risk in this world is not attacking first, because of how the spirit webs work- essences are like muscles. Get hit a bunch, your vitality essence channel expands. Use mana? Your mana channel expands.
What about divine aspects? If a divine aspect was powerful enough to destroy a whole city, there would likely be other divine aspects capable of destroying cities. In a way, this prevents wars between divine aspects, but not via proxy war.
we literally have 2 wars going on right now in the real world. there hasnt been a period ever without major nations at war, and it was even worse in the past.
We have more than 2 wars going on. But I don't think any major nations are formally at war with each other. The world is actually remarkably peaceful compared to say the 19th Century. When was the last time a war was fought in the Americas? Does the American invasion of Grenada count?
>When was the last time a war was fought in the Americas? Tbf there are huge civil wars going on in Mexico and Columbia right now. Just because the actors are often not states themselves doesn't mean they're not wars.
Eh... if we're defining down to "civil disturbances" like... well Haiti is a worse basket case now than it was a decade ago... as being "wars" then I think we can confidently say the world is a good place now. We're not dealing with anything like the Boxer Rebellion at the moment. And... I strenuously disagree that Mexico and Columbia are anywhere near as bad right now has they have been over the course of the 20th C. I'd point to Haiti and Venezuela as the "war zones" in the Americas right now.
I mean if you compare the Mexican Drug War to the Mexican Civil War, this is broadly true, but it ignores that Mexico had a long period of relative peace from the 1920s to the 90s. (Ofc, the Zapatistas never really laid down their arms, but they weren't really an existential threat like in the 1910s.) And the Mexican Drug War - which has killed tens of thousands of people, brought the state of Mexico to the brink of collapse and thus cannot really be called a 'civil disturbance' - really caused a noticable drop in public safety and standard of living, both in Mexico and in all of its major neighbors.
*Major Wars. Small-scale wars and rebellions are going on all the time that most people know very little about.
And those are just the "wars" that have the official designation. That's not including all the proxy wars and armed conflicts raging all over the world.
I want more war. I'm war maxing. America and Russia probably won't go to war because one nuke and your leaders are all dead. In the short times between better armor and improved weapons, war was less scary, because dying would be harder. Nukes = scary, Armor = fun.
What is your tech level? The better the tech, the more centralised nations become, and the fewer and larger your conflicts will be (generally). If it’s medieval, have a highly fractured system with absolutely LOADS of Lords/Barons/Earls/Dukes whatever. They will fight eachother all the time, as long as the monarchy above them is weak enough to allow it.
Very low. First generation means a bunch of Adams and Eves are walking around with primitive clothing. Edit: There is magic that is easy to access which allows easy tool crafting.
So hunter gatherer? In that case you’re looking at extended family units of 50 to 100 people forming tribes, just like in real life, and these would all fight each other for the best hunting grounds, most fertile areas for gathering, and best places to shelter.
Yes, but due to magic, crafting is much easier. For example, one slightly common magic is attaching two objects together- you can imagine how useful that one ability alone would be.
So they’re hunter gatherers? Without the permanence afforded by an agricultural lifestyle it’s difficult to expand beyond ~100 people. This is generally the maximum amount of people who can get along with each other day in day out without splinter groups emerging.
One of the best ways to cause war is to make them a bit beyond hunter gatherers, as communities are too small and mobile to force a ton of conflict. there will still be some of course, but in general, if you want good, proper, wars, you want a limited resource that one side has, but the other side wants, and the side that has it don't want to trade it for anything that the wanting side has. Yet the side that wants it can't just go somewhere else to get it, so, they have to take it. Historically this has often been farmland or pasture, mines, water access, gold and other riches
Those are Special Military operations, Not war. Nobody Made a formal declaration of war! We are war free for a Long Time, because of that
i mean we are insofar that no major nation has attacked another for a while now, its all proxy wars.
Resources. So, sooooo many wars are fought over control of ore, oil, water, farmland, and so many other things. Have something worth fighting over, then give some places more of it than others. Combine that with all your other ideas. Bada Bing Bada Boom, warfare.
Great suggestion. This may actually work great with one of my mage concepts, ritualists use objects that represent runes instead of runes, and that is dependent on your culture. A rare flower is now a useful magical resource, despite lacking inherent magical properties, just a belief in what it represents. (Mechanically rituals work like flywheels- they store immense power and can release it quickly.)
If you’re trying to avoid it, I get it, but religion is pretty proven at starting wars. The different runes and rituals seem like fertile ground for conflict to grow. Also, there could be conflict over which rune is superior/ creates the most power for the flywheel. As in, “all hail the cauliflower rune gods, those who use starches for their flywheel must convert to the true cause”. In that vein, the harvesting of the runes themselves could cause conflict, harvesting one may destroy another culture/tribe/race/rune user’s ability to access their preferred rune resource. Harvesting too much of one rune resource could awake an ancient guardian or something. They then team up with another rune tribe to put an end to the greed. Idk. Just taking a dump and spitballin. Good luck!
I definitely will have religions. Some wouldn't really be starting wars, but some might fight to end them. A major religion serves the concept of war, you can probably guess the doctrines. The biggest religion serves Truth, who is fine with commiting war crimes on Deception cultists (who honestly deserve it) and fighting in wars to protect the honest is fine. The Divine Aspects are very active, directly speaking to disciples, they aren't exactly subtle (Unless the concept they represent means otherwise.) about what they want, and most want more power, to further their purposes- spreading the concept they represent, so the more faithful, the more martyrs, the more they can spread.
Resource scarcity. Religious differences. Ideological differences. Poorly thought out boarders. Imperialistic ambitions. Geopolitical interests.
Religious differences is a big one- The Divine Aspects are any Titan with a soul. The source of all souls is the first divine aspect, Truth, who has an immensely large soul. Other divine aspects have to 'steal' soul, as only Truth had from the very start. When someone dies in the name of an aspect, their soul is added to the aspect, which is perceived as an afterlife of sorts to the soul. The soul is simultaneously used to create spirit (power) for the aspect. People who served divine aspects also create spirit for the aspect, just in lesser quantities. So conversion is almost always a universal requirement for religions, but you must kill the other religions so they don't convert your own, or at least keep them out of the government/homes, which might start wars. Also, the more soul an aspect has, the closer it is to understanding and being understood by it's followers, and the more personality it has besides it's core concept- Truth for example can always hear prayers and hold extensive conservations with many people. Truth isn't just plain honesty- killing is also wrong, unless you are killing followers of deception related aspects. All of it's tenets are heavily related to Truth though, if you must kill someone you must be honest about it. No back stabbing or surprise attacks. Other Divine Aspects have less souls, and thus less nuances. Let's say Cultivation- farmers might be faithful to such a concept, but why die for it? Only a truly selfless person would do so- some might, but many more would die for Truth. On the other hand, small cults with extreme devotion would gladly die, but few would serve. Let's say there is an aspect of Deception. The cultists whole life revolves around trickery- even in dying, they will lie, making martyrs. This makes deception more rounded then 'lie a lot', telling the truth is fine if you are using it in the name of deception- to further a lie, or when people think you are lying, deception also keeps it's commandments obscured from non believers, and loves pretending to be truth. Murdering honest men might be a commandment, as well as stealing and other selfish acts when you can get away with it. Perhaps one humorous commandment only known to the higher ups, you randomly ask people in private if they want to be sacrificed- either they are lying or telling the truth, if they are telling the truth, they aren't loyal, if they are lying, they are lying despite risking death, either way, going through with the sacrifice is beneficial, as long as you don't tell anyone why.
Mages are adept at creating expendable magical troops (e.g. golems, constructs, elementals, daemons, undead, etc) which means wars can be started without risking human lives… at least on the side that attacks first anyway.
Don't know if this will work with my specific magic system, but still an excellent idea I will try to incorporate. Still, other authors should use this to increase war. (If they want to that is.)
Make transportation easier. Lack of logistical capability is a major barrier to war, perhaps the biggest.
Makes sense somewhat, but that might also increase trade. Maybe it requires ritualists and thus exclusive materials only some can obtain. Alternatively, this system poses a huge security risk. Only a few people are allowed to know the locations, otherwise an enemy army could send a bomb down it, so trade is too risky, it can only be used to transport to and from someone you completely trust, and would destroy the transportation to prevent an army from sabotaging it.
Yeah, it would increase trade as well.
1. Low Ressources / Uneven Distribution of Ressources 2. Migratory peoples 3. Low centralisation, feudalism-like 4. Aggressive or Exclusionary ideologies / religions / cultures 5. Warrior societies (where the Warriors are also the ruling class) 6. Climate change has been a historical drive for invasions / colonisation 7. Population displacement 8. Tribalism 9. Important geographic features are often fought over bitterly. 10. New technologies especially ones concerned with ease of travel and communication speed have also been a driver of war as nations are put in contact with new peoples and their culture, but also their contexts and existing conflicts and interests. Bonus : dunno how magic works in your world but if there are any important places for magic, people would probably wanna control them.
I was interested in the concept of ley lines, it's still a maybe. Symbolism is extremely valuable though- a rare flower that people think represents something, could be used in a ritual to align mana to that concept.
This question sounds concerning out of context lmao A big one is to limit the ease of acquiring vital resources, and how much of the resources there is to go around through peaceful trade. The "manifest destiny" mindset also was a massive driving force in human history - look at the Crusades.
Strangely this message is missing from my notifications. I think the main issue will be food. When a scythe can't cut through grass you will have issues with harvesting food. Everything, not just creatures with souls, have spirits and thus essence enhancements- plants and animals you would eat are much harder to kill, and plants can't exactly get up and run, so they are relatively more tanky than animals. (Once dead, eating isn't hindered- it's spirit has already left.) Wars will be fought for food, because the effort of obtaining it is much more than taking it. This often results in starvation, which further encourages slavery, or at least indentured servitude. (This slavery isn't a superiority complex, it's an unfortunate necessity, and in most cases slaves are kept fed and protected like any other civilian, though in the early tribes people aren't really paid anyways, 'slaves' can own property.) Unless you serve the concept of Famine, (why would you do that?) destroying food is generally seen as unforgivable. If anyone served a divine aspect anything like famine, they would likely be executed, and executions aren't exactly quick and painless events, not with everyone being super durable. Anyone depraved enough to enjoy these executions would likely be executed. As for crusades? Absolutely. There is no clockmaker gods- the divine aspects will answer prayers like you would answer someone talking to you directly- maybe not all the time, but you would certainly try. Also unlike most modern depictions of God, the divine aspects are hardly omnipotent, some are weaker than the greatest mortals. So imagine a bunch of single minded guys who probably want power to further their purposes, who each have the knowledge that martyrs give them more power than a normal faithful, would almost always want a crusade like event- plenty of opportunities to die for your divine aspect. Some aspects wouldn't do this- an aspect of Peace. Truth (the greatest divine aspect so far.) would absolutely be against a crusade for no reason, crusades against cultists of Deception would be fine. Also, any crusade of Truth would be incredibly honest- like knocking on someone's door and warning them you are a thief before you take their stuff.
just copy the reason for why 90% of wars happen
Would that be resources or ideological differences?
Just being at war is often a net positive in a premodern setting. It creates social mobility through loot and glory, moves wealthy into your territory and gives young people an outlet for their destructive impulses. At the same time, being nasty and warlike makes you safer, because your rivals are busy defending themselves instead of launching attacks of their own.
Makes sense. I should make sure the world doesn't reach a point where working together gives more resources then being selfish.
Indoctrination is usually the answer in the real world.
It would work, but there needs to be a first motivation to do so. How can I make war beneficial to everyone, or at least the people who matter? (leaders.)
Scant resources. This is exactly the origin of real-world vikings.
Also why they made longboats- they had one resource, giant trees, and made great use of it.
Exactly. They had tools to cut down trees. So they cut down trees, built boats, and sharpened tools. And then went to find what they *didn't* have. It might be fun to make up a city who is basically Revenge raiders. They lived in beautiful, lush mountains that were logged basically to Extinction, leaving these people living in caves and Mining out iron with nothing but stories of the beauty they lost. So now they go in war bands to the city next door and "take back what's theirs."
You don't really need to. But honestly if you just have a place that is the only place that produces some type of resource that is essential to most societies, they'll fight over it constantly
Yes. Magical resources, crafting materials, and even food that stays good for a little longer.
In some of my settings, full-on wars are rare but there are pretty much nonstop territorial disputes.
Why do these disputes happen?
Eh, same as any of the mentioned ones: Food, resources, tactical advantages. My worlds are as unforgiving as they are wonderous. Operate on the logic of "Sure, magic CAN do anything, the problem is nobody knows what it WILL do." In exchange for everyone having magic that they can use and develop how they desire, there's peril everywhere: Monsters that spawn as function of the world infinite in form and make but all posssed by sheer animal instincts to destroy, crazy biome-specific weather like Meteor, Lava, or Poison Fog seasons, areas where the very dimensions are unreliable to the point where land and sky are not always parallel, places where the things living in the dark corners of your own mind come to life and try to kill you. One big advantage of the Territorial Dispute approach that it can allow for a lot of creative freedom in terms of "Yesterday's Enemies are Today's Friends." Even if you want pragmatism to rule.
'places where the things living in the dark corners of your own mind come to life and try to kill you.' Imagine a field. In this field there is long grass dotted with flowers, and a single tree, as well as a large beast of unimaginable horror that can enter reality to eat people who imagine it.
Introduce or highlight more conflict. War doesn’t have to always be on a national scale. For the longest time warfare historically would have been clan against clan.
The most common motivations for war in the real world are ideology, religion, nationalism, and resources
[удалено]
I like this. Small wars fought every harvest would make even more sense considering how low risk it would be. I imagine that in such minor wars of stealing food, some clans could consider it so normal, it is like a fun event. Sometimes people die, but in most cases they are captured and ransomed for food. War between distinct cultures and religions wouldn't be as civilized.
[удалено]
About slavery, each religion serves a divine aspect. Once religions become reasonably sized and stabilized, I can't think of any reason for most concepts to disallow slavery. A divine aspect of Freedom would definitely disallow slavery, and as it obtains more martyrs, it could develop into freedom for others. (Martyrs' souls are added to the divine aspect they serve.) Out of some other concepts the divine aspects represent, I think most would encourage slavery of others. (The most powerful aspect, Truth, would see keeping others as slaves while not being enslaved yourself as dishonest, and therefore a sin.) Any divine aspect representing any form of resource gathering might find slavery acceptable, but for crafting products, the craft might be deemed sacred, and a sin if done wrong, so those religions would have slaves to do resource gathering for the crafts. A divine aspect representing the concept of war might encourage taking trophies to remember past conquest- slavery is just another form of trophy. The only aspects I see disallowing it would be heavily developed 'virtue' concepts- Honor, Loyalty, and Protection may see slavery as a violation of their respective concepts, but may be fine with others doing it to those who 'deserve' it. (According to each aspects' judgement.)
[удалено]
The more martyrs an aspect has, the more nuance it has. Freedom with few martyrs will take freedom literally, but I can see freedom of mind being a later, more nuanced form.
op is a metal gear villain
Why would you think that...
"Writhing Kraken" SOUNDS like a metal gear boss to
Wars are restricted to things like "Counting coup" or other relatively bloodless endeavors. Mostly a cultural thing, but it allows for more frequent skirmishes because there's a whole lot less death even if the injury rate is still high. Wars have to be frequent because the population breeds like *crazy* and there's a high survival rate to adulthood. Or conversely, the population hits a very low limit due to the environment, and this means excess population builds very rapidly. There's a sudden dramatic stressor on the population -- maybe war only recently became common due to societal collapse, or the recent *Pax Imperia* recently ended as the power that enforced it on the population is gone. Perhaps the group that recently gained power secretly is still weak, and has devised Hunger Games-style conflicts to keep accelerating their power consolidation while their competition is kept off balance. Conversely, in a world that just got conquered by a massively overpowered enemy -- think Cthulhu or terminators or billions of zombies, for example -- but the population was so large that despite the end of global or national levels of resistance, there's still plenty of communities yet to be overrun. Also, perhaps the consequences of war are massively mitigated somehow -- the world is a simulation so you can always respawn, or you can simply be ressurrected / transplanted into a new body, making death usually an inconvenience unless they "lose your data" somehow. EDIT to add: in a multi-sapience world (ie, not just humans, but dwarves, elves, orcs, et al), some species may be dramatically more suited to either certain environments or endeavors. Perhaps one species wants to enslave another species that are hardier in radioactive environments, or perhaps a species can work for much longer with lower food/water consumption, while also less likely to be able to resist subjugation when captured They have their own kingdoms and can hold off enemies bent on full conquest, but have to fight lots of skirmishes from those same enemies trying to steal their citizens (or fight the occasional war to retrieve some of their kin, while never being successful enough to end the cycle of raids on their population outright). In the same multi-sapience world (universe?), perhaps there's so many different species that no one species can fully dominate, but there's nothing like the cooperation you see in D&D and LOTR -- no such thing as human/dwarf or orc/goblin alliances (at least not at the beginning of the story).
Do you think the increases durability of all life, including things you would eat, would effect war? This durability is lost upon death. Also, animals are even faster, with more stamina, better senses and better stealth but people also have these benefits, and often in greater scales. Plants though are absurdly durable, their spirits only ever use vitality essence or maybe mana essence, and only rarely. If crops are hard to harvest, and animals can't be killed or crippled in one shot, yet food needs remain the same, how is war effected?
Hm... I assume increased durability also means you don't starve as fast. Ancient battles tended to end in victory when one side or the other "broke ranks and fled". Increased durability due to magics (spirits, whatever) would mean the battles could last a whole lot longer, especially since it would not be apparent that one side was weakening for some time. Wars might actually decrease either in frequency or scale, simply because fighting might not gain enough benefit if you're spending days on end trying to defeat your enemy. Alternately, since you're talking about using spirit to gain more spirit... you might get a "professional warrior" class that only fights war; they skirmish frequently against fellow fighters in their army to gain strength and then go out to fight the next war they're assigned to. However, they may not be likely to attack massed groups -- if a warrior is extremely rare albeit potent enough to win a 1x1 fight, and even amateur fighters are very durable, the risk of getting taken down by a mass of amateurs (and the amateurs developing some power) may not be worth it. What you might get there is a warrior class that only fights other warriors not because of any sense of nobility, but a sense that war needs to be kept to the warrior class to avoid others from gaining the spirit skills.
*Power system; Power is gained quickly by action- nobody gains magic by doing nothing, but fighting is a action packed.* By this one, were you trying to say striking first gives you a massive advantage? Like charging magics for battle is such that starting to charge means you have to use the charge or it's wasted (or possibly even injurious if not used)? Early military writers thought that air power would force nations into starting wars proactively -- they thought air power had no good defense, so nations would build up huge fleets of bombers and then attack before their enemy could build up enough to strike. They didn't know about missiles and other defensive weapons that could block air power, plus they overestimated the value of strategic bombing. Still, there could be a logic there if there's no good way to stop an attack once it starts.
Here is the mechanical reason: You have a thing called a spirit. (It is not your soul, but heavily connected to it.) Spirits contain essence channels, forming a spirit web. Essence channels are like muscles- using them makes it grow. So if you fight in a war, your vitality essence channel might expand, making you more durable forever. If you do target practice or carve wood, your dexterity essence channel will grow. The people only know when you do something you get better at it, so do that thing if you want to be good at it. (Better than others.)
I've thought about this before. My setting is a landlocked valley blocked from ocean access and trade with the world by a hostile state. It has multiple empires, dozens or more countries ranging in size from large mappable states to city-states. There are possibly hundreds if not thousands of stateless tribes, raider groups, lord armies, religious groups/orders, mercenary groups, slavers, etc. There are multiple sapient species like tigers, jaguars, bears, foxes, wolves and humans, among others I haven't mentioned. These are all omnivores or carnivores(no sapient herbivores). They don't each have a faction/country like in typical fantasy worlds. Each may have multiple states among themselves or be mixed in other states. Tribes and states dominated by the same species may fight each other for control. They may fight factions of other species. They might team up with a faction filled with other species to raid or conquer a different faction of the same species. Being the same species doesn't grant privileges. There will certainly be those that prioritise their own species over others, that's expected. There will be those that prioritise their own culture over others of the same or similar species, that's also expected. Neither of these factors change much in the grand scheme of things. Even when slavery is concerned, it doesn't matter. Different species? Fair game. Same species? Fair game. Like the Romans, slaves are slaves. There are generally wars for territory, trade routes, resources or opposing ideas. Travelers and convoys are often robbed of valuables like firearms, materials, jewels and automobiles(exotic and expensive, also useful). As a result, many people are trained in defense and the use of weapons. Trains may be armed and guarded as well. There are also raids to steal livestock from other factions too. The technology varies very widely between countries because of how protective they are and just because of the expense of acquiring and using some technologies. The less wealthy factions are closer to a medieval or early modern equivalent level. Their best weapons may be some large cannons and basic guns(still capable of warfare in their own right). The wealthiest states, however, have access to airships, fighter planes, [armoured trains](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_train), [landships](https://cdna.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/045/437/790/large/chase-schaake-stilldrygrasslands.jpg?1642709267), modernised bows and crossbows, metal alloy and ceramic armour tested against the strongest of bullets, guntrucks, [armoured cars](https://www.military-history.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Ferret-armoured-car.jpg), melee weapons made with superior techniques and materials, more advanced firearms(No full auto. They may be bolt action, lever action, semi-automatic rifles or crewed machine guns mounted to legs or vehicles due to size and weight). The most advanced empires have even made *[artillery trains](https://youtu.be/_0dN7AHOGJs?si=53mZGMm2mlAeAtsb)*, trains that can fire artillery at the enemy and act as battleships on land. The common soldiers tend to get the less powerful weapons in many armies such as bows and crossbows. The higher soldiers, particularly those of nobility like knights get access to better rifles, better armour, better shields, better made polearms and other melee weapons, and the higher chance of commanding an armoured vehicle like a landship. Where an army falls in this range depends on the resources and connections. A poor army with resourceful allies can get the logistics and access required to make use of better weapons and machines. City walls, fortresses and castles are also fitted with machine guns and anti-aircraft cannons. The technology is a combination of [Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind](https://youtu.be/IV6k5_K7_Ko?si=H0cFkEWanGX1Ypp8) and [Castle in the Sky](https://youtu.be/J6vV31TDYLg?si=4MRJVXMciN07rGb6) with the idea that the cultures of my world would put some kind of spin on these in terms of physical appearance or execution method, as well as altering designs for different purposes or goals. This could also apply to personal automobiles which could have more distinct cultural touches and be rather rare for those not able to afford them. The idea of lots of wars happening in my setting gives leeway for many kinds of scenarios that I could think of. Lapis_Wolf
Why aren't humans objectively superior to the other races? Unless they already are.
They're just humans, regular humans. Plus, they're one of the newest sapient species in the region, coming from other continents in the last few hundred years. Lapis_Wolf
That's all great, but you really don't need any of it. Just make people greedy, just like the real world. The more you have, the more you want.
Maybe, but it can be even more believable.
Just do what we do irl. Have a few powers where people are relatively safe because they have massive militaries. Have them not want to fight directly because they don't want to get their hands dirty, so most of the world consists of smaller nations fighting proxy wars on their behalf while the big powers judge them for being so violent. Easy.
You missed out the two biggies - resources and ideology/religion. Most real world conflicts boil down to one of these two causes.
wars are always ongoing, although with what you mention it in other comments seems you're talking about large wars akin to the world wars, or the Napoleonic wars, or the 7 years war, between major powers then you have to avoid WMDs. Things like nukes cause M.A.D (for those that don't know, that is Mutually Assured Destruction), in short they cause a large hesitation amongst nations about causing wars, as there is always the fear that one nation will launch a nuclear strike, and the other will respond in kind. At least in my world, M.A.D doesn't occur after WW2 because nuclear tech doesn't advance that far. It results in major nations not having that hesitation to go to war, at least not on the scale of M.A.D. technically any WMDs can result in M.A.D, nukes are just the IRL example of that. If your world have magic or sci-fi technology, there will be some other kind of WMD, perhaps a spell or something like an anti-matter bomb and the like.
MAD won't exist. It technically could exist, but won't. While a human with an absurd amount of agility essence can never go more than 40 MPH (Theoretical maximum for perfect conditions and perfect human speed.) there is absolutely no limit to how hard to kill someone can become. In other words, by the time nukes can exist at all, there will be people who can survive it, likely the most powerful people on earth, a nuke wouldn't even scare them. Of course, there are no such people currently, as the world is only a few decades old. The greatest equivalent to MAD would be extremely powerful rituals- the amount of time, people, and resources it would take would be absurd, but possible. Even then, you can't really move rituals around, it would have to be built secretly in enemy territory, which would be impossible. As for spells? Once again, by the time people are capable of casting spells large enough to outright destroy a city, the warriors inside will likely be durable enough, and have enough enchanted gear to be fine. The only risk in this world is not attacking first, because of how the spirit webs work- essences are like muscles. Get hit a bunch, your vitality essence channel expands. Use mana? Your mana channel expands. What about divine aspects? If a divine aspect was powerful enough to destroy a whole city, there would likely be other divine aspects capable of destroying cities. In a way, this prevents wars between divine aspects, but not via proxy war.
religion is the easiest cause for war. wars that last forever and are unsolvable.
I got religions, and the divine aspects have plenty of good excuses to cause wars.