A little secret is that every society at one point was a warrior culture, every culture and people had ancestors who had to fight against nature and Against other peoples who wanted their land and resources. Some cultures lean into that part of themselves more or less than others, but it’s always there
I think the biggest misconceptions people have about history’s “warrior societies, the biggest culprits being the Spartans Samurai and Vikings, is that they not only not take into the account the complexities of their beliefs and everyday life, but also why their systems began to decline. For example, Sparta’s policy of exceptionalism in its restrictive citizenship and its constant military campaigns and uprisings of its vassals meant that they eventually became diplomatically isolated and politically redundant in Ancient Greece, with their pool of military eligible citizens shrinking. It caused a lot of turmoil when certain Spartan kings or oligarchs tried to reform these policies to try to make more of their subjects citizens or to embrace a more Hellenic societal structure.
Exactly, it’s all about nuance and context imo, otherwise you give up so many opportunities to showcase the cooler aspects of a culture compared to “hurrdurr, my guys are better than yours”. Especially when there’s so many examples in history you can look at, and said information being more accessible than ever.
To be fair, Sparta collapsed because an earthquick killed a great amount of it's citisens and it was unbale to recover from it. Restricted citisenship was generally the norme in the time even in Athen, the real problem simply was thet Sparta was always really small so any natural disaster, as historicly happened, was able to weaken it into oblivion.
@@reactiondavant-garde3391 maybe so, but by the Hellenic era, with the massive empires of the Diadochi all around them, Sparta was often at the mercy of their influence, hoping to gain some assistance to regain their position of power.
@@nate742 Yes, but it was after the earthquick already. At the Hellenic era the era of the single city state system ended and most citise establish allainces (basicly city state confederations) with each other, good example for this is Epirus. The fact is, being exclusivist city state was not always detrimental, Rome only given citisenships for a very narrow part of the population and it's golden age was at the same time when it was exclusivist compered to the later imperial era when they started giving out citisenship like candy.
@ that may be, though in Rome’s case there was times when being more open saved them from ruin. Like when Hannibal was ravaging Italy with Gauls and Mercenaries, and only the predominantly Greek. southern Italian region’s rose up to support him. The central Italian regions, while not fully Roman at that point, had been gradually building close ties with Rome, and saw Hannibal as not a liberator but an invader.
They are based on knightly orders after all: Templars, Hospitallars, etc. The latter had to be doctors and knights, to provide healing to anyone traveling by their posts. Templars, as well, did not just exist in the Holy Land to fight for and protect pilgrims; and when the King of France ended their order with executions, they allegedly cursed him on the pyre, and sure enough, the the royal dynasty soon ended and a new one came about. Real life has some baller lore when it comes to inspiration for world building and paladins
The big thing for me is, how is violence channeled to serve society? Japan's bushido was used to reinforce a stratified society while attempting to bind the warrior to a particular lord, which is very similar to the bond between Celtic warriors and their chieftains. Medieval Europe had a neat combination of feudalism, an economic and political system which allowed for the maintenance of professional heavy cavalry, with chivalry, which attempted to curb the dangers of that heavy cavalry within the bounds of Christendom. The British Regimental system of the Napoleonic Wars was also multi-faceted: it attempted to remove dangerous elements from city streets, create employment in an economy creeping towards the Industrial Revolution and urbanism, and bind the resulting tools of violence strictly under the power of the State. Why does this society need warriors? How does this society keep its warriors ready to do violence? And how does this society ensure that violence is pointed in the right direction? Nice video! Will absolutely be looking at more of your work. :D
This is excellent again. As a long time L5R player, I have long sought something that hit the honorable warrior troupe as well without the baggage that comes with L5R. And thank you for providing your sources.
Yeah, I think there's a good middle ground. Sometimes a simple warrior culture is all you need honestly but I think in the context of the whole picture there should be groups of varying complexity to enhance both the simple and the complex.
I know this channel is intended for DMs in DnD, but man does this apply to fiction as a whole. I hope TRILL's videos can help me better my own writing.
A great video, I wholeheartedly agree. To me, a core principle of warrior societies is duty. Be it Sparta, Athens, Rome, medieval Europe or Sengoku period Japan, warriors were not only the ones to wage war, but to rule and sacrifice their own lives to uphold their duties. Codes of honor are a byproduct of that - a set of virtues to guide those, who need to go above and beyond in the name of many.
I love using the template of a society of loving a king/emperor since they see him as a semi god and fight to keep that god/demigod safe and to do their will
Speaking alone about honorbound societies: there is practical value to honor in a social context that is otherwise lawless. It's why you hear "Honor among Thieves", "The Pirate Code", "The honorable Nomad" and whatnot. As an adventurer, you'll often find yourself where law cannot be enforced. The people who travel along these lands or seas, or who call them home require something else to ensure a sense of security and stability. That is honor. To do unto others, what you would accept being done unto yourself. If you go against your cultural code, you won't be charged with a crime, but you'll suffer stigmatization and open yourself up to retaliation. If your warrior society objects to killing children and the elderly, slaughtering one in battle might lead you to exile or execution. Rumors of you being a highway bandit might get you killed on sight, or in your sleep. Or, like, John Wick: killing a fellow guild assassin is fine so long as it's outside the hotel.
@ethanwesthoff7444 AH... thank you for correcting me. haha Still, there is historical precedent for the presence and need for honor during the mid-twentieth century among the Cosa Nostra, the Bratva, the Yakuza and such.
@@alexandredesouza3692 I think the difference is thet this are highly organised crime syndicates. Cosa Nostra or Yakusa is traditionalist in a strange way as well. They developed strong in group and outgroup identity to defende agains traitors and subversion. Interestingly some argue thet the Cosa Nostra (and generally the sicilian maffia) origins are came from the sicilian lower noblity and the way they act is in fact an inherited trait from the past where loyalty, honor and family was above any approache.
Part of "honor" among criminals is overcompensation for breaking the greater societal contract. In some sense, the pirate crew or mafia gang needs to see themselves as "honorable" men. If the pirate crew truly thinks of themselves & each other as a gang of murders, then trust within the group would be impossible, and everyone would be trying to get the drop on each other. The character Dutch in Red Dead Redemption 2 shows this, he spends much of his time trying to convince the gang that they are the real good guys.
@blkgardner Totally! No human activity can function without a basic social contract - honor is as basic as it gets. If everyone is potentially a deceitful murderer and you aspire to do more than survive, you need trust. That means proving your reliability; that you honor your word, that you share your resources, that you know how to pick your fights. Since everyone is more-or-less just as rational, you can expect them to do the same.
I think when talking about honour there is a common problem of inserting modern humanist morality into honour codes. Chivalry was originally a code that covered the rules of war, oath and status. Satisfying honour in some cultures can be as limited as ensuring you tick the correct boxes. Defending a nobel woman because of her status not because she is a woman. Interestingly however there are often commentry on those who go above and beyond honour both for and against. Something I haven't seen in a lot of media is also the act of suspition of someone going beyond what is required (try hards have always been a thing). Do they do it due to a higher moral understanding or is it manipulative, does bestowing the same care to a low born person insult a hight born person? etc... ideas of honour, oaths, and loyalty can be more of a minefield than I think modern people can understand. Warrior creeds can be in response to increasingly complex social structures. I follow my creed I do not need to think if it is right or wrong which is a valuable trait in soldiers and those who society requires to act decissivly. This can in stories be used the highlight or elevate the character of characters in a story. Do they follow an internal code more than what is demanded. Do they do the bare minimum and everyone knows it?
The problem you describe has a term from Hollywood, Sand and Sandals. Those are movies that are set in the past but the characters (or at least the protagonists) have modern values. A modern example would be Gladiator. Russell Crow's Maximus is a man not of his times. He has a thoroughly modern set of values. The series Rome does a better job of capturing the values of the time. The movie "Alexander" also depicts a protagonist who's behavior more closely matches the ancient Greek's idea of a hero or at least the proper way a high status man should act. He has a goal and pursues it no matter what. He doesn't consider the well being of his family and kills, or otherwise defeats, those who would stand in his way. However, how Alexander accomplished that goal mattered as much as the goal itself. In the real history the rival Persian king was killed by traitors in his own inner circle. The real Alexander did not reward them for removing an enemy. He had them killed. You DO NOT turn on your king.
Yeah Even though elements that we consider honorable did exist throughout history they were simply not considered to have a relationship with honor., honor as we know it did not come into existence until the 1800s.
I think in fantasy, another important question is how does "magic" shape the nature of war and combat? In the real life, a warrior culture's values and structure are directly molded by the weapons, strategy and organisation they use. When new styles of war come around, the old warriors can either adapt, change their role or become obsolete. But what would a world look like if, say, faith or intellect itself were the strongest weapon? Or what if it was a good strategy of warfare to funnel all resources into a single semi-divine warrior created by blood sacrifices? However the reality of this world differs from ours, it is likely to deeply affect the fundamental building blocks of any warrior culture in it.
I’m creating a “morally complex” world we’ll say, for my fantasy wargame. Each faction in said game has their own motivations, but it’s really all about perspective. The idea of honor or what is right is always subject to the character or group in question and how they view their and others’ actions. No one decision is purely good or evil and therefore no person or creature is either. It may be difficult or somewhat convoluted to write in this way, but I find it to be much more intriguing and gripping as well.
Given that there are many types of warrior societies / orders to be inspired by from history / different cultures, I'd like to see more of them mixed with some magic or fantasy mysticism in them, rather than a million variations on European generic knights and Japanese inspired warriors. With your video and the launch of Dragon Age Veilguard , today is a good day for fantasy in my book!
In my fantasy setting, orcs are seen by outsiders as brutal savages, but are actually a very complex society. Firstly, mercy is considered the biggest virtue in their society. When a captive of war or an opponent in a duel is spared, they are expected to repay this even with their lives, as such the following rituals were introduced into their society after decades of following this tradition: - when two nobles wish to marry, they arrange a duel between themselves to decide which one will hold the dominant position. Therefore there is no dominant gender, but each family still has only one person who legally owns their land and rights - when leaders of different communities rally behind a king or military commander, in order to ensure loyalty it is customary for each of them and the best of their champions to challenge that king to a duel and then immediatelly surrender, with the winner having an option to execute them (but usually and by custom giving mercy) - When an advisor disagrees with a decision of a leader who showed them mercy, they can only protest by taking their own life and the leader can only stop that suicide if they change their decision After mercy, the second biggest virtue to orcs is efficiency. By law the leader can order anybody who is repeatedly incompetent to commit suicide, and subjects in kind can refuse to follow orders from an incompetent ruler. But once again, giving mercy to those incompetent, for example by only demanding they give up their position, is seen as even more virtous. This is also the stereotype stems from that orcs think "might makes right", as most other societies know orcs mostly in war, and orcish warriors always strive to be the most efficient murder-machines possible, by building up muscles and showing off when they're stronger than others.
Seems like what you have created are green humans rather than orcs. Tropes exist for the purpose of creating an easy to understand and identifiable concept. While you don't have to follow tropes, expect the result from players who are raised with such tropes to be confused. Personally, I believe it is better to create something new than to co-opt an old trope for a new idea.
@@starhalv2427 As a result of using the term Orc, which comes with a preconceived ideas of what a creature is, there is confusion. So I would beg to differ, it doesn't dismiss my point in the slightest. It might even be worth heeding what I had to say because of this. Words have meanings for a reason.
@@techpriest6962 Hmmm... no No to orcs having to be green, no to leaving my players confused because I changed the way a fantasy species works (Last time I did that they were more interrested, not less). And no to "tropes exist for a reason so don't you dare add something new to existing concepts, such as making orcish mentality civilised yet completely alien to humans". Basically everything you suggested I already know to be bullcrap
That seems to be ignoring the principle the sufficiently obsolete norms cease to be normal. Once a mercy becomes standard practice, it ceases to really be mercy, but merely normal practice.
For worldbuilding in general the roles of Women in Warrior Societies is always pretty interesting, regarding that they in those Societies hypermasculine or not often have more rights and/or duties then in others. Either being able to become warriors themself or if they like what u meantioned at 8:36 are the noncombative part of the society and often have Administrative and Governing Roles
Something worth mentioning is that warriors are not brutes that swing wildly a weapon... fighting effectively takes a lot of time, discipline, strenght and swiftness of mind... During training you must push through pain and being tired, you must have clarity of mind even when you feel like you cant breathe and your muscles are so sore that you can barely stand, every movement is done with a strategy that must constantly adapt and that is something that not every fool can do or is willing to do. If you look at world champions today, they train their bodies but also their minds... so please dont turn your warrior cultures into a bunch of ungas boonking each other.
When people criticize or choose to exclude warrior cultures they're usually speaking of monolithic fantasy cultures that are solely built around the warrior archetype. I haven't seen anybody criticizing or excluding warrior orders / classes unless they're building some pacifist utopia on purpose. The video is good though
I think criticisms of monolithic warrior cultures are also overstated. Yeah you can do the work and make them intricate and interesting but sometimes they just are what they are. Not everything needs a ton of work.
@TrillTheDM I mostly agree. One thing that I wish people explored more in depth is hierarchy and even exploitative relationships *within* the warrior culture. For almost as long as class society has existed there have been military elites with great prestige, and then conscripted commoners and foreign mercenaries. Considering the tensions between the three strata can help storytellers craft plot points revolving around demoralization, desertion, disagreements, and even independent armies and bands started by veterans. These beats are no less interesting in a context where the warriors are proud barbarians or templars than they are in a modern war movie.
I have a few groups you could call warrior societies, but the main one I have surprisingly views several things, including combat, as a way to constantly improve themselves. Basically, if you have something that 1. benefits the group, and 2. you want to keep doing, then you should constantly find things to improve in that field. One of the most surprising examples even is in their (fairly logical) Gladiator arena's, which you'd think are actually covered in blood & gore, but 99% you'd actually live, if not 100% as long as you play fair. the only way someone would ever die in the arena is if the referee their deems you unfair (i.e. cheating, unbalanced fight, attacking bystanders, etc.), other than that, its usually just safer versions of Roman gladiator fights, with a mix of Advertising that some people do in the culture, such as using customized weapons made by blacksmiths that aren't exactly practical or players eating meals mid fight made by a cook to promote his/her business.
Honour and discipline are often the most used trait of warrior cultures, so to give another trait you can use for a warrior culture is Conviction. I once had a game where the players needed to warn the king of a nation about a dragon coming, it didn't matter how much evidence the party had gathered about the dragon coming, they first had to fight. the players didn't even need to win the fight, they just had to demonstrate their conviction to relay their information. in this culture I wrote someone who was a liar but had to conviction to stand up for their lie was inherently more believable in society than someone who was too scared to fight for their truth.
Warrior cultures need mundane reasons to exist and rituals. Knights are a good way to think about them. They were essentially a military/ruling caste at the top of the pyramid. Knightly orders were basically the military branch of religious organizations. They had religious and monastic vows/rituals, beat sticks, and did whatever the original religious org had been doing. Ex. Hospitallers were benedictine monks running a hospital that later hired knights to defend crusader holdings.
Something notable about Sparta, arguably the most famous example of a “warrior culture” in western if not global history. Is the idea of the “Spartan Mirage”, can your warrior culture back up the reputation that they have built for themselves? How does this culture face itself should the mirage be broken, and do they start to believe their own propaganda and become almost a satire of themselves, as Sparta arguably did when it essentially became a tourist spot under the Roman Empire. Remember that Spartan diplomacy was just as much a reason for its prominence (but also its downfall), other societies might fear your warrior culture if all they do is fight but they need an element of diplomacy to be respected and not attacked by a coalition of angry neighbours.
Every culture is a "warrior culture" on some level, in the sense that the state and other social organizations is built around defense and fielding armies. The nobility and gentry ARE the elite soldier/officer class of society. The effeminate court fop is a relatively recent invention in Western society, and even then, gentlemen continued to duel down to the start of WWI. This is means that even weak states tend to be at least "fairly good" at fielding armies, otherwise, invaders would quickly overrun them by defeating them in detail. Now, there are some exceptions to this, to greater and lesser extents: such as Old Kingdom Egypt, ancient China, and the Byzantine Empire. And monarchs do often employ "new men" people or relatively humble backgrounds that are loyal to the king, rather than powerful and autonomous nobles. The old nobility is often pushed into a "retired decadence," in which they enjoy wealth and high status as compensation of their loss of power, such as the old Roman nobility and French nobles at Versailles. But even then, the new men were placed in civil roles, while the old nobles tended to retain military and especially diplomatic roles. The exceptions to the warrior culture are generally regional hegemons, in which the domestic warrior-nobility is found to be a greater threat to order than outside invaders. These tend to be mature and "decadent" civilizations, with elaborate court rituals, often a plethora of vestigial offices, and a hereditary aristocracy that seems to serve little point. But, these societies tend to have relatively high levels of civilization: the autonomous nobles have been brought under the thumb of the king (except in wilderness areas) and the level of civilization is higher than its neighbors. However, there is also a class of "warrior-centered" cultures in which over-militarization is a compensation for weakness. Sparta is a good example of this: it was only able to exercise hegemony over a relatively small part of Greece, and was afraid to take any army any great distance away from Sparta for fear of a slave revolt. However, the half-barbarous Alexander of Macedon was able to take his army to India. Likewise, the late-era Japanese Samurai culture was largely over compensation for the samurai class being idle due to long periods of peace.
You nailed it except for the magic angle. Just like today with technology, magic will affect what the top level of society value , When the rulers are mages instead of warriors the need for loyalty will remain but the need for bravery will be absent. The warrior culture will be a minority culture within the military.
Magic is highly unlikely to have the same widespread effect as technology, since only a small minority can actually use magic, but anyone can use technology.
@@danielward7747 disagree - while sure, magic will have an effect on how society works and what it values, by same coin it will change how warrior culture works to fit circumstances - it's a process that never catches up, but nonetheless evolves
@@danielward7747 neither of those statements is correct. Many magic items in various settings can only be used by people who can use magic independently of the item, and the ability to make magic items is often rarer than the ability to use magic directly.
depends on the magic in question/how hard it is to learn. Is the magic capable of leveling the battlefield but takes decades to master then you will see it in nobility but you will have men at arms under them to make sure they don't get swarmed and overwhelmed by another noble and their men. Is it powerful divination that allows you to see the future they might not even be in the political system but might come with the land after all if you can see the future why die with your lord just you will always be useful to somebody. If its not hard to learn why would the warrior not use it as another weapon in their arsenal.
A great example can be the fire nation and air nations of Avatar one an example of focusing too much on power and the other being too passive leading to their extinction
It's the final battle scene from the movie Flesh + Blood (Verhoeven,1995) if you're referring to the grim medieval melee sequence with the archer and spear throwing mounted warrior. The list of films used in the video is included at the end.
I think witchers are a terrible example here. They are not any sort of power balancing order. They're a nearly extinct, chronically broke group of exterminators.
If you're only considering the modern age version of them sure, but that isn't the entirety of their lore. They absolutely were at a time a power balancing order. Not directly but the existence of them served well enough. It'd be like saying "well the Crusaders orgs are all just Christian charities these days what a bad example"
@@TrillTheDM, this. Especially if you read the books rather than only reference the lore mentioned in the games (or God forbid the absurd live action small screen abomination).
@@DjigitDanielby abomination you mean 1999 or 2019 series? Neither are good, but I feel that older (which curiously had writer himself going from its proponent to opponent) is narratively less bad
A little secret is that every society at one point was a warrior culture, every culture and people had ancestors who had to fight against nature and Against other peoples who wanted their land and resources. Some cultures lean into that part of themselves more or less than others, but it’s always there
I think the biggest misconceptions people have about history’s “warrior societies, the biggest culprits being the Spartans Samurai and Vikings, is that they not only not take into the account the complexities of their beliefs and everyday life, but also why their systems began to decline. For example, Sparta’s policy of exceptionalism in its restrictive citizenship and its constant military campaigns and uprisings of its vassals meant that they eventually became diplomatically isolated and politically redundant in Ancient Greece, with their pool of military eligible citizens shrinking. It caused a lot of turmoil when certain Spartan kings or oligarchs tried to reform these policies to try to make more of their subjects citizens or to embrace a more Hellenic societal structure.
Exactly, it’s all about nuance and context imo, otherwise you give up so many opportunities to showcase the cooler aspects of a culture compared to “hurrdurr, my guys are better than yours”. Especially when there’s so many examples in history you can look at, and said information being more accessible than ever.
To be fair, Sparta collapsed because an earthquick killed a great amount of it's citisens and it was unbale to recover from it. Restricted citisenship was generally the norme in the time even in Athen, the real problem simply was thet Sparta was always really small so any natural disaster, as historicly happened, was able to weaken it into oblivion.
@@reactiondavant-garde3391 maybe so, but by the Hellenic era, with the massive empires of the Diadochi all around them, Sparta was often at the mercy of their influence, hoping to gain some assistance to regain their position of power.
@@nate742 Yes, but it was after the earthquick already. At the Hellenic era the era of the single city state system ended and most citise establish allainces (basicly city state confederations) with each other, good example for this is Epirus. The fact is, being exclusivist city state was not always detrimental, Rome only given citisenships for a very narrow part of the population and it's golden age was at the same time when it was exclusivist compered to the later imperial era when they started giving out citisenship like candy.
@ that may be, though in Rome’s case there was times when being more open saved them from ruin. Like when Hannibal was ravaging Italy with Gauls and Mercenaries, and only the predominantly Greek. southern Italian region’s rose up to support him. The central Italian regions, while not fully Roman at that point, had been gradually building close ties with Rome, and saw Hannibal as not a liberator but an invader.
Now that I think about it, Paladins in general make for an excellent warrior culture.
Real, that's what I am trying to do with the cultures I am crafting
They are based on knightly orders after all: Templars, Hospitallars, etc. The latter had to be doctors and knights, to provide healing to anyone traveling by their posts. Templars, as well, did not just exist in the Holy Land to fight for and protect pilgrims; and when the King of France ended their order with executions, they allegedly cursed him on the pyre, and sure enough, the the royal dynasty soon ended and a new one came about.
Real life has some baller lore when it comes to inspiration for world building and paladins
The big thing for me is, how is violence channeled to serve society? Japan's bushido was used to reinforce a stratified society while attempting to bind the warrior to a particular lord, which is very similar to the bond between Celtic warriors and their chieftains. Medieval Europe had a neat combination of feudalism, an economic and political system which allowed for the maintenance of professional heavy cavalry, with chivalry, which attempted to curb the dangers of that heavy cavalry within the bounds of Christendom. The British Regimental system of the Napoleonic Wars was also multi-faceted: it attempted to remove dangerous elements from city streets, create employment in an economy creeping towards the Industrial Revolution and urbanism, and bind the resulting tools of violence strictly under the power of the State. Why does this society need warriors? How does this society keep its warriors ready to do violence? And how does this society ensure that violence is pointed in the right direction?
Nice video! Will absolutely be looking at more of your work. :D
This is excellent again. As a long time L5R player, I have long sought something that hit the honorable warrior troupe as well without the baggage that comes with L5R. And thank you for providing your sources.
Yeah, I think there's a good middle ground. Sometimes a simple warrior culture is all you need honestly but I think in the context of the whole picture there should be groups of varying complexity to enhance both the simple and the complex.
I found my answer in mouseguard
I know this channel is intended for DMs in DnD, but man does this apply to fiction as a whole. I hope TRILL's videos can help me better my own writing.
A great video, I wholeheartedly agree. To me, a core principle of warrior societies is duty. Be it Sparta, Athens, Rome, medieval Europe or Sengoku period Japan, warriors were not only the ones to wage war, but to rule and sacrifice their own lives to uphold their duties. Codes of honor are a byproduct of that - a set of virtues to guide those, who need to go above and beyond in the name of many.
I love using the template of a society of loving a king/emperor since they see him as a semi god and fight to keep that god/demigod safe and to do their will
Speaking alone about honorbound societies: there is practical value to honor in a social context that is otherwise lawless.
It's why you hear "Honor among Thieves", "The Pirate Code", "The honorable Nomad" and whatnot. As an adventurer, you'll often find yourself where law cannot be enforced. The people who travel along these lands or seas, or who call them home require something else to ensure a sense of security and stability.
That is honor. To do unto others, what you would accept being done unto yourself. If you go against your cultural code, you won't be charged with a crime, but you'll suffer stigmatization and open yourself up to retaliation.
If your warrior society objects to killing children and the elderly, slaughtering one in battle might lead you to exile or execution.
Rumors of you being a highway bandit might get you killed on sight, or in your sleep.
Or, like, John Wick: killing a fellow guild assassin is fine so long as it's outside the hotel.
While I agree with what you’re saying the saying is “NO Honor Among Thieves.”
@ethanwesthoff7444 AH... thank you for correcting me. haha
Still, there is historical precedent for the presence and need for honor during the mid-twentieth century among the Cosa Nostra, the Bratva, the Yakuza and such.
@@alexandredesouza3692 I think the difference is thet this are highly organised crime syndicates. Cosa Nostra or Yakusa is traditionalist in a strange way as well. They developed strong in group and outgroup identity to defende agains traitors and subversion. Interestingly some argue thet the Cosa Nostra (and generally the sicilian maffia) origins are came from the sicilian lower noblity and the way they act is in fact an inherited trait from the past where loyalty, honor and family was above any approache.
Part of "honor" among criminals is overcompensation for breaking the greater societal contract. In some sense, the pirate crew or mafia gang needs to see themselves as "honorable" men. If the pirate crew truly thinks of themselves & each other as a gang of murders, then trust within the group would be impossible, and everyone would be trying to get the drop on each other. The character Dutch in Red Dead Redemption 2 shows this, he spends much of his time trying to convince the gang that they are the real good guys.
@blkgardner Totally! No human activity can function without a basic social contract - honor is as basic as it gets.
If everyone is potentially a deceitful murderer and you aspire to do more than survive, you need trust. That means proving your reliability; that you honor your word, that you share your resources, that you know how to pick your fights.
Since everyone is more-or-less just as rational, you can expect them to do the same.
The 13th warrior in black/white hits different
Hell yeah
I think when talking about honour there is a common problem of inserting modern humanist morality into honour codes. Chivalry was originally a code that covered the rules of war, oath and status. Satisfying honour in some cultures can be as limited as ensuring you tick the correct boxes. Defending a nobel woman because of her status not because she is a woman.
Interestingly however there are often commentry on those who go above and beyond honour both for and against. Something I haven't seen in a lot of media is also the act of suspition of someone going beyond what is required (try hards have always been a thing). Do they do it due to a higher moral understanding or is it manipulative, does bestowing the same care to a low born person insult a hight born person? etc... ideas of honour, oaths, and loyalty can be more of a minefield than I think modern people can understand.
Warrior creeds can be in response to increasingly complex social structures. I follow my creed I do not need to think if it is right or wrong which is a valuable trait in soldiers and those who society requires to act decissivly. This can in stories be used the highlight or elevate the character of characters in a story. Do they follow an internal code more than what is demanded. Do they do the bare minimum and everyone knows it?
The problem you describe has a term from Hollywood, Sand and Sandals. Those are movies that are set in the past but the characters (or at least the protagonists) have modern values. A modern example would be Gladiator. Russell Crow's Maximus is a man not of his times. He has a thoroughly modern set of values. The series Rome does a better job of capturing the values of the time.
The movie "Alexander" also depicts a protagonist who's behavior more closely matches the ancient Greek's idea of a hero or at least the proper way a high status man should act. He has a goal and pursues it no matter what. He doesn't consider the well being of his family and kills, or otherwise defeats, those who would stand in his way.
However, how Alexander accomplished that goal mattered as much as the goal itself. In the real history the rival Persian king was killed by traitors in his own inner circle. The real Alexander did not reward them for removing an enemy. He had them killed. You DO NOT turn on your king.
Yeah Even though elements that we consider honorable did exist throughout history they were simply not considered to have a relationship with honor., honor as we know it did not come into existence until the 1800s.
Sanderson’s Alethi in his Stormlight series is a fantastic example of warrior culture done right imo
I think in fantasy, another important question is how does "magic" shape the nature of war and combat? In the real life, a warrior culture's values and structure are directly molded by the weapons, strategy and organisation they use. When new styles of war come around, the old warriors can either adapt, change their role or become obsolete. But what would a world look like if, say, faith or intellect itself were the strongest weapon? Or what if it was a good strategy of warfare to funnel all resources into a single semi-divine warrior created by blood sacrifices? However the reality of this world differs from ours, it is likely to deeply affect the fundamental building blocks of any warrior culture in it.
I’m creating a “morally complex” world we’ll say, for my fantasy wargame. Each faction in said game has their own motivations, but it’s really all about perspective. The idea of honor or what is right is always subject to the character or group in question and how they view their and others’ actions. No one decision is purely good or evil and therefore no person or creature is either. It may be difficult or somewhat convoluted to write in this way, but I find it to be much more intriguing and gripping as well.
Well done, sir. Again, impressive collection of sampled video clips. Thank you for including the videography/ film accreditation at the end.
Given that there are many types of warrior societies / orders to be inspired by from history / different cultures, I'd like to see more of them mixed with some magic or fantasy mysticism in them, rather than a million variations on European generic knights and Japanese inspired warriors. With your video and the launch of Dragon Age Veilguard , today is a good day for fantasy in my book!
In my fantasy setting, orcs are seen by outsiders as brutal savages, but are actually a very complex society.
Firstly, mercy is considered the biggest virtue in their society. When a captive of war or an opponent in a duel is spared, they are expected to repay this even with their lives, as such the following rituals were introduced into their society after decades of following this tradition:
- when two nobles wish to marry, they arrange a duel between themselves to decide which one will hold the dominant position. Therefore there is no dominant gender, but each family still has only one person who legally owns their land and rights
- when leaders of different communities rally behind a king or military commander, in order to ensure loyalty it is customary for each of them and the best of their champions to challenge that king to a duel and then immediatelly surrender, with the winner having an option to execute them (but usually and by custom giving mercy)
- When an advisor disagrees with a decision of a leader who showed them mercy, they can only protest by taking their own life and the leader can only stop that suicide if they change their decision
After mercy, the second biggest virtue to orcs is efficiency. By law the leader can order anybody who is repeatedly incompetent to commit suicide, and subjects in kind can refuse to follow orders from an incompetent ruler. But once again, giving mercy to those incompetent, for example by only demanding they give up their position, is seen as even more virtous. This is also the stereotype stems from that orcs think "might makes right", as most other societies know orcs mostly in war, and orcish warriors always strive to be the most efficient murder-machines possible, by building up muscles and showing off when they're stronger than others.
Seems like what you have created are green humans rather than orcs.
Tropes exist for the purpose of creating an easy to understand and identifiable concept.
While you don't have to follow tropes, expect the result from players who are raised with such tropes to be confused.
Personally, I believe it is better to create something new than to co-opt an old trope for a new idea.
@techpriest6962
I never said they're green. Never said anything about how they look.
Kinda ruins your whole argument doesn't it?
@@starhalv2427 As a result of using the term Orc, which comes with a preconceived ideas of what a creature is, there is confusion.
So I would beg to differ, it doesn't dismiss my point in the slightest. It might even be worth heeding what I had to say because of this.
Words have meanings for a reason.
@@techpriest6962
Hmmm... no
No to orcs having to be green, no to leaving my players confused because I changed the way a fantasy species works (Last time I did that they were more interrested, not less). And no to "tropes exist for a reason so don't you dare add something new to existing concepts, such as making orcish mentality civilised yet completely alien to humans". Basically everything you suggested I already know to be bullcrap
That seems to be ignoring the principle the sufficiently obsolete norms cease to be normal. Once a mercy becomes standard practice, it ceases to really be mercy, but merely normal practice.
For worldbuilding in general the roles of Women in Warrior Societies is always pretty interesting, regarding that they in those Societies hypermasculine or not often have more rights and/or duties then in others. Either being able to become warriors themself or if they like what u meantioned at 8:36 are the noncombative part of the society and often have Administrative and Governing Roles
I am trying my hand at worldbuilding. I am trying to craft a warrior culture that's based on Knights of Round table and Christian militant. orders.
Something worth mentioning is that warriors are not brutes that swing wildly a weapon... fighting effectively takes a lot of time, discipline, strenght and swiftness of mind... During training you must push through pain and being tired, you must have clarity of mind even when you feel like you cant breathe and your muscles are so sore that you can barely stand, every movement is done with a strategy that must constantly adapt and that is something that not every fool can do or is willing to do.
If you look at world champions today, they train their bodies but also their minds... so please dont turn your warrior cultures into a bunch of ungas boonking each other.
I might have to use some of this stuff for the Werewolf: the Apocalypse game I’m running. The Garou are definitely a warrior culture
When people criticize or choose to exclude warrior cultures they're usually speaking of monolithic fantasy cultures that are solely built around the warrior archetype. I haven't seen anybody criticizing or excluding warrior orders / classes unless they're building some pacifist utopia on purpose. The video is good though
I think criticisms of monolithic warrior cultures are also overstated. Yeah you can do the work and make them intricate and interesting but sometimes they just are what they are. Not everything needs a ton of work.
@TrillTheDM I mostly agree. One thing that I wish people explored more in depth is hierarchy and even exploitative relationships *within* the warrior culture. For almost as long as class society has existed there have been military elites with great prestige, and then conscripted commoners and foreign mercenaries. Considering the tensions between the three strata can help storytellers craft plot points revolving around demoralization, desertion, disagreements, and even independent armies and bands started by veterans. These beats are no less interesting in a context where the warriors are proud barbarians or templars than they are in a modern war movie.
Immediately subbed in the first two minutes
This video should be required viewing for anyone thinking of looking into Pendragon. I could make a whole campaign exploring these concepts.
I have a few groups you could call warrior societies, but the main one I have surprisingly views several things, including combat, as a way to constantly improve themselves. Basically, if you have something that 1. benefits the group, and 2. you want to keep doing, then you should constantly find things to improve in that field. One of the most surprising examples even is in their (fairly logical) Gladiator arena's, which you'd think are actually covered in blood & gore, but 99% you'd actually live, if not 100% as long as you play fair. the only way someone would ever die in the arena is if the referee their deems you unfair (i.e. cheating, unbalanced fight, attacking bystanders, etc.), other than that, its usually just safer versions of Roman gladiator fights, with a mix of Advertising that some people do in the culture, such as using customized weapons made by blacksmiths that aren't exactly practical or players eating meals mid fight made by a cook to promote his/her business.
Something I really like about this channel is that sometimes he will pin the most stupid comment to the video. It's always hilarious
Knocked it out of the park again! :D
Honour and discipline are often the most used trait of warrior cultures, so to give another trait you can use for a warrior culture is Conviction.
I once had a game where the players needed to warn the king of a nation about a dragon coming, it didn't matter how much evidence the party had gathered about the dragon coming, they first had to fight. the players didn't even need to win the fight, they just had to demonstrate their conviction to relay their information. in this culture I wrote someone who was a liar but had to conviction to stand up for their lie was inherently more believable in society than someone who was too scared to fight for their truth.
Warrior cultures need mundane reasons to exist and rituals.
Knights are a good way to think about them. They were essentially a military/ruling caste at the top of the pyramid.
Knightly orders were basically the military branch of religious organizations. They had religious and monastic vows/rituals, beat sticks, and did whatever the original religious org had been doing. Ex. Hospitallers were benedictine monks running a hospital that later hired knights to defend crusader holdings.
Something notable about Sparta, arguably the most famous example of a “warrior culture” in western if not global history. Is the idea of the “Spartan Mirage”, can your warrior culture back up the reputation that they have built for themselves? How does this culture face itself should the mirage be broken, and do they start to believe their own propaganda and become almost a satire of themselves, as Sparta arguably did when it essentially became a tourist spot under the Roman Empire. Remember that Spartan diplomacy was just as much a reason for its prominence (but also its downfall), other societies might fear your warrior culture if all they do is fight but they need an element of diplomacy to be respected and not attacked by a coalition of angry neighbours.
Another banger as usual
Every culture is a "warrior culture" on some level, in the sense that the state and other social organizations is built around defense and fielding armies. The nobility and gentry ARE the elite soldier/officer class of society. The effeminate court fop is a relatively recent invention in Western society, and even then, gentlemen continued to duel down to the start of WWI. This is means that even weak states tend to be at least "fairly good" at fielding armies, otherwise, invaders would quickly overrun them by defeating them in detail.
Now, there are some exceptions to this, to greater and lesser extents: such as Old Kingdom Egypt, ancient China, and the Byzantine Empire. And monarchs do often employ "new men" people or relatively humble backgrounds that are loyal to the king, rather than powerful and autonomous nobles. The old nobility is often pushed into a "retired decadence," in which they enjoy wealth and high status as compensation of their loss of power, such as the old Roman nobility and French nobles at Versailles. But even then, the new men were placed in civil roles, while the old nobles tended to retain military and especially diplomatic roles.
The exceptions to the warrior culture are generally regional hegemons, in which the domestic warrior-nobility is found to be a greater threat to order than outside invaders. These tend to be mature and "decadent" civilizations, with elaborate court rituals, often a plethora of vestigial offices, and a hereditary aristocracy that seems to serve little point. But, these societies tend to have relatively high levels of civilization: the autonomous nobles have been brought under the thumb of the king (except in wilderness areas) and the level of civilization is higher than its neighbors.
However, there is also a class of "warrior-centered" cultures in which over-militarization is a compensation for weakness. Sparta is a good example of this: it was only able to exercise hegemony over a relatively small part of Greece, and was afraid to take any army any great distance away from Sparta for fear of a slave revolt. However, the half-barbarous Alexander of Macedon was able to take his army to India. Likewise, the late-era Japanese Samurai culture was largely over compensation for the samurai class being idle due to long periods of peace.
You nailed it except for the magic angle. Just like today with technology, magic will affect what the top level of society value ,
When the rulers are mages instead of warriors the need for loyalty will remain but the need for bravery will be absent. The warrior culture will be a minority culture within the military.
Magic is highly unlikely to have the same widespread effect as technology, since only a small minority can actually use magic, but anyone can use technology.
@@danielward7747 disagree - while sure, magic will have an effect on how society works and what it values, by same coin it will change how warrior culture works to fit circumstances - it's a process that never catches up, but nonetheless evolves
@@TheAchilles26 Anyone can use a magic item. Unlikely to be that few that are able to make magic items.
@@danielward7747 neither of those statements is correct. Many magic items in various settings can only be used by people who can use magic independently of the item, and the ability to make magic items is often rarer than the ability to use magic directly.
depends on the magic in question/how hard it is to learn. Is the magic capable of leveling the battlefield but takes decades to master then you will see it in nobility but you will have men at arms under them to make sure they don't get swarmed and overwhelmed by another noble and their men. Is it powerful divination that allows you to see the future they might not even be in the political system but might come with the land after all if you can see the future why die with your lord just you will always be useful to somebody. If its not hard to learn why would the warrior not use it as another weapon in their arsenal.
This video really brings to light why Mandolorians don't really have any depth to them.
A great example can be the fire nation and air nations of Avatar one an example of focusing too much on power and the other being too passive leading to their extinction
Good thoughts. A more concrete model would be helpful.
what movie were the first couple scenes from?
What films does he use as reference? I'd love to see the one with the zwiehander
All are listed at the end.
What is the thumbnail picture from?
What scene is that at 6:01?
It's the final battle scene from the movie Flesh + Blood (Verhoeven,1995) if you're referring to the grim medieval melee sequence with the archer and spear throwing mounted warrior.
The list of films used in the video is included at the end.
Should I be worried I’ve seen near all the movies and shows in this video 😅
I think witchers are a terrible example here.
They are not any sort of power balancing order. They're a nearly extinct, chronically broke group of exterminators.
If you're only considering the modern age version of them sure, but that isn't the entirety of their lore. They absolutely were at a time a power balancing order. Not directly but the existence of them served well enough.
It'd be like saying "well the Crusaders orgs are all just Christian charities these days what a bad example"
@@TrillTheDM, this. Especially if you read the books rather than only reference the lore mentioned in the games (or God forbid the absurd live action small screen abomination).
@@DjigitDanielby abomination you mean 1999 or 2019 series? Neither are good, but I feel that older (which curiously had writer himself going from its proponent to opponent) is narratively less bad
@@Jfk2Mr , I care little for either.
1:50 It wouldn't survive, period.