The map of real-life Europe has been redrawn many, many times over the centuries. Borders have changed constantly, nations came into being and ceased to exist. None of that happened because a god reached down from the heavens with a big pen.
No one suggested you should manually redraw the maps, but in the past you have injected environmental pressures to break stagnation. It would be nice to have cataclysms of one type or another that make it increasingly difficult to maintain control of your regions. Plagues, famines, monster and undead swarms.
If things are stagnant then they are so because people who enjoy stagnation have ascended to the dominant positions. Why do you keep electing and supporting them?
Howard Zinn has a book about the elements of a successful revolution. One of them is "severe state crisis" which can include wars and natural disasters.
I don't really understand your opposition considering you've done this in the past and it's the basis of an entire game world. Why's it different if people suggest things like this should be able to happen randomly?
I know what you're getting at, but here is why rogues and monsters don't solve our issues: They turn the game into a PvE game, making players even LESS inclined to fight each other. We would make the exact thing we want to strengthen even less appealing.
The key to avoiding that is keeping the environmental factors low enough that they're unlikely to destroy whole realms on their own but strong enough that they put a strain on a realm's resources making them more vulnerable to internal or external attack. A lot of wars started that way with one power either trying to seize resources to make up its deficit or exploiting the weakness of their neighbor after a disaster. In fact more often then not this was the primary motivation for war with nationalistic hatred of the enemy nations being more a matter of PR.
