Cyclic history (I) - The sword & sorcery paradigm of civilization downfall

“Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” ― Robert E. Howard

There are two popular conceptions of history that I see everyday: I'll call them "progressive " and "conservative", but feel free to correct me if you know better terms. 

"Progressive history" believes society advances (if irregularly), somewhat like technology. There are ups and downs, but there is also a right path to march forward, and those who fail to see that are barbarians "on the wrong side of History". 

"Conservative history" believes History is not a march forward, but a series movements bringing us closer or farther from some center (usually created by a deity). Tradition should be handled with care, and those who fail to see that are degenerates and heretics.

Another possibility is "Regressive history", the belief that everything was better in ancient times. There is some of that in Hinduism, Taoism and the Garden of Eden, but it is not a common perspective of history nowadays. People often see their youth as the golden years, but the medieval period as "the dark ages".

The sword & sorcery paradigm of civilization downfall, found in the writings of Howard, Lovecraft and Moorcock, tells a different story...

“The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents... some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new Dark Age.”

― H.P. Lovecraft

“Barbarianism is the natural state of mankind. Civilization is unnatural. It is the whim of circumstance. And barbarianism must ultimately triumph”

― Robert E. Howard

Within this paradigm, history is cyclical (this is also a theme in Hinduism and Plato, as far as I know.) Cultures go from barbarianism to civilization, but civilization becomes decadent until it destroys itself, returning to barbarianism. 

We could divide this in five stages, as exemplified by Conan characters: savage (e.g., the Picts), barbarian (e.g., Conan and the Cimmerians), civilized (e.g., Aquilonia), decadent (e.g., Stygia) and ruined (extinct societies like Lemuria and Atlantis). I think I read the idea in some old version of RuneQuest first, but it is common in many RPGs.

(Note: it is also possible to have utopia as an alternative to the kinds of societies delineated above - e.g., Satya Yuga, the Garden of Eden, Avalon, etc. This is uncommon in S&S settings; they appears mostly as mythical, distant or extinct places, such as the original home of Yag-Kosha. A PC or even NPC from such origin should be very rare).

Howard seems to favor barbarianism, as mentioned above, but maybe this is because he's telling so many stories from the barbarian point of view (even Conan eventually becomes king of Aquilonia, in a way choosing civilization over barbarianism). 

I prefer to look at it in a cyclical manner: barbarianism will often "ascend" to civilization, but civilization plants the seed of its own destruction. 

(The Lovecraft quote also explains why: knowledge is dangerous, and too much progress will bring us back to "dark ages". The idea that knowledge/power brings madness/corruption is also common in S&S and dark fantasy in general.)

This is an important point, because it's easy for us to see civilization as the epitome of society. When we think of it in terms of cycles, we can see any position is relative. Each society judges itself superior to others, and see other societies in comparison with their own. Conan sees civilized folks as degenerate already, while someone from a decadent civilization (say, Moorcock's Melniboné) would see Aquilonians (or "the young kingdoms") as ignorant barbarians.

On the other hand, an individual can see its own culture with critical eyes. For example,  you might belong to a decadent culture and denounce its excesses publically. This might turn you into an outcast or pariah.

In addition, cultures are not monolithic. You could have a culture where the elites are incredibly decadent but the poor still try to maintain some decency, for example, or vice-versa. Different groups could exist in the same nation or city. Rulers can preach morals despite living decadent lives, or conversely they can breed corruption in the population while maintaining civilized lives themselves.

Once you break free of this "barbarian is better" or " civilization is better" paradigm, things becomes much more interesting. Instead of good against evil or Law against Chaos, you get meaningful choices and shades of gray. A PC could come from any kind of society (although PCs from savage and ruined ones will be rarer), with pros and cons. 

And we could reflect on demographics, laws, customs, magic and science in each kind of society, for easy and fun world building... 

Which I plan to do soon.