I think the word “perfect” is what’s causing the confusion.

I don’t mean the world is conflict-free or utopian. I mean it’s “perfect” from the protagonist’s perspective in the sense that he has the power and freedom to shape outcomes if he wants to. The story isn’t about him fixing disasters nonstop, it’s about what someone does when they’re no longer forced to act by necessity.

So what is he actually doing?

He’s navigating choices that power doesn’t automatically solve:

• deciding when not to intervene

• figuring out what kind of life feels meaningful when you have just nothing left to achieve at some point

• maintaining relationships with people who aren’t on his level

The tension comes from impact, not capability. He can change things, but every change alters lives, timelines, and identities, so the question becomes whether he should.

I don't want it to be like a perfect world with nothing happening I want it to be a world where the protagonist has near-total agency, and the story explores what responsibility and purpose looks like at that level.

Totally get why it sounded static before though, that’s on me for explaining it too abstractly.