I want to create a fantasy setting where two races are bitterly opposed over something completely fucking trivial.

I want to create a fantasy setting where two races are bitterly opposed over something completely fucking trivial.

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Good for you. Fuck off and do it.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      SEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETHING

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Well we, the BlagSmargians, think that creating a fantasy setting where "two races are bitterly opposed over something completely fucking trivial" is completely stupid and unoriginal idea.

    Unlike those filthy, backwater Smargblagians who think that creating a fantasy setting where "two races are bitterly opposed over something completely fucking trivial" is interesting and even intelligent idea.

    God, I hate those Smargblagians so much.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >those filthy, backwater Smargblagians who think that creating a fantasy setting where "two races are bitterly opposed over something completely fucking trivial" is interesting and even intelligent idea.
      >Smargblagians
      >think
      You give those animals to much credit.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Imagine being a BlagSmargians and having to think this way.

      This is why the Smargblagian is the best way. Your culture is literally backwards. Who the fuck in the galaxies eats Boiled Skrumph and not roasted? Oh yeah you do. Kek

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous.

        >Itt. Smargblagian once again proving his entire species is incapable of doing anything right.
        You just end up with charred Skrumph then. It doesn't cook right past the outside, and the exterior scorches.
        You boil Skrumph to cook it properly, but also to soften it and add moisture. You can then use Skrumph as a base for some of the most popular Pan-Clustoral Ardocon Cuisine out there.
        Instead you're telling people to cook it with a fucking bic lighter like it's Xquack.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Pull up on us then!!!!!
      You won't.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Very true, fellow BlagSmargian. But at least the SmargBlagians aren't the IanSmargblags.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Blagfag please go.
      /tg/ is for Smargchads only.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You fucking Blagger retards can’t stop seething about such a frivolous concept. Literally rent free. Ffs.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Trips of truth
        Why can’t we stop winning Smargchads?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Smargchads
          >Cranking gleep balls without Shoodlebop
          >Winning

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Have it be ultimately rooted in an interpersonal conflict between two people that, though connections and influence and escalation, has resulted in a cultural generational conflict that has long outlived anyone who was around at the start of it.

    Someone knifes someone over a game of cards in a bar, and 150 years later its a fucking war.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Isn't that basically the Sunni and Shia thing? A succession struggle that's outlived the successors by like 1500 years?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Sort of, but Shia is mostly found in Iran and is mostly just a proxy for Iranian culture. The divide (between Iranians and Arabs) was already there, and if not for that succession crisis it would have manifested some other way eventually.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I once had a 200+ year war happening between two nations thanks to a slight difference in gestures.
    During a diplomatic voyage, a noblema made a gesture to imply that he wanted a second serving of the delicious marmalade macaroni he'd been served. Unfortunately, for the other country, this same gesture meant a particularly vicious insult that could be translated as "you eat your own feces." As it was a diplomatic dinner, the insult was enhanced a hundredfold.
    Things only escalated from there.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The creature stirred in his sickly broiling vapour, and at that very moment the words "I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle" drifted across the conference table.
      >Unfortunately, in the Vl'Hurg tongue this was the most dreadful insult imaginable, and there was nothing for it but to wage terrible war for centuries.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >marmalade macaroni
      wtf is wrong with you, you fucking freak?

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Like skin color?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      or taking a few lines onto a prayer

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        tacking

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I know you probably don’t care about the point but the issue isn’t that the words were added it’s that they changed a prayer no one has the authority to change anything without a church council

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          So true. This is why we must remove the Filioque.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I will admit I was thinking about that "yours is the power and the glory" line that proddies added.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >implying the church has the authority to declare anything without the direct word of God

          >Verification not required

          🙁

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Implying a church council of fallible humans has the right to corrupt the word of God because they say so, after corrupting the word of God to give themselves permission.
          Nah, sorry, ain't buying it, step onto the pyre please we haven't got all day!

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Things that actually cause bitter opposition between people aren't trivial by definition. It'd have to be something that has never actually caused conflict. Gulliver's Travels did it right with the egg-cracking thing.

      I want to say there was a Dr. Seuss book about a war fought between people because they buttered bread differently, but truth be told if there was a race of people who buttered the bottom side of their toast and ate it that way I'd be down for killing them all.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Aww hey I found it. It also ends the (unintentionally) funniest way it possibly could: Nobody ever uses any of the weapons they developed because the destructive potential is too high.

        In retrospect, this is basically a salient case for the virtues of nuclear proliferation.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No it's not. The book ends with the two facing each other down nervously and on the idea that either side could use their weapon at any time, and even one mistake or misunderstanding could spell doom for both.

          The final line is >"Be patient. We'll see. We will see..." and the the end card even undercuts with a "maybe". It's very clearly anti MAD

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I know what its intention was. I'm just pointing out that if you extend the metaphor out to real life nobody ever invades across the wall and nobody ever drops the atomic gumball. Viewed with the benefit of hindsight, nuclear deterrence 100% works, and the world would probably be less violent if more countries had nuclear arms.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Ever think maybe we've just been lucky?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                There's no luck involved, just layers and layers of risk management.

                By contrast if there were no nuclear deterrents you'd have peer/peer conflicts happening constantly. It's no coincidence that we don't have those anymore, it's probably saved more lives than any single other political development in history. Military strength now only matters for the purposes of sealclubbing third world countries that don't have nukes.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I'd argue that MAD is just a solution to its own problem and the world would be better off if nuclear weapons never existed in the first place. Obviously from a realist (in the International Relations sense) it's a completely logical concept and does technically make the world "safer". But I completely sympathize with someone who says "man it kinda sucks the only solution to someone having a kill switch for the world is someone else also having their own kill switch".

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The sad reality is it's not just a solution, it's a necessary one.
                The entirety of human history has been defined by one sentence: the strong do as they wish and the weak suffer what they must.
                MAD is dealing with bullying in schools by giving every kid a hand grenade to hand off their book bag; but the other option is the endless suffering of those who are helpless, from here onwards unto eternity.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Betting against low odds forever seems worse than not betting at all

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              All it takes is one retard in the right place for a war to start, nuclear deterrence only works if every side is run by people who won't press the button because they got pissy one day.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Things that actually cause bitter opposition between people aren't trivial by definition
        Split of Czechoslovakia happened over the fact it was called "Czechoslovakia" and not "Czecho-Slovakia". Thankfully nobody got shot over it.
        Split of Yugoslavia, with a resulting bloody war and genocide happened over... nobody really knows what, because it went full retard.
        Rwandan clusterfuck happened over repeating to two tribes for 30 years that they are different.... 30 years prior to the resulting slaughter.

        And that's just shit from the top of my head that happened within my lifetime.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Split of Czechoslovakia happened over the fact it was called "Czechoslovakia" and not "Czecho-Slovakia". Thankfully nobody got shot over it.
          >Split of Yugoslavia, with a resulting bloody war and genocide happened over... nobody really knows what, because it went full retard.
          You can't be this fucking retarded.

          >Rwandan clusterfuck happened over repeating to two tribes for 30 years that they are different.... 30 years prior to the resulting slaughter.
          They were and are different, though. Tutsis and Hutus are two different ethnicities entirely. Just because they're both low-IQ subsaharan savages does not make them all the same.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You can't be this fucking retarded.
            >Tutsis and Hutus are two different ethnicities entirely
            Ironic

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It is just a tutsi lie, the cleansing never happened.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          "Trivia" is something that doesn't really matter. If something doesn't seem to matter to you, but obviously actually matters because it effects geopolitics meaningfully, then it isn't trivia, you're just uninformed.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >but truth be told if there was a race of people who buttered the bottom side of their toast and ate it that way I'd be down for killing them all.
        Why the fuck WOULDN'T you butter the underside of your toast when that's the side that will actually be coming in contact with your tongue's taste buds? You just sound like you're ignorant and afraid of trying new things.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You belong on the end of a rope, Zook.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Bigendianism and littleendianism were adapted by programmers for the two schools of thought regarding data transfer.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >if there was a race of people who buttered the bottom side of their toast and ate it that way I'd be down for killing them all.

        Some of us butter the top side of our toast for practicality but then turn it upside down to eat,

        >but truth be told if there was a race of people who buttered the bottom side of their toast and ate it that way I'd be down for killing them all.
        Why the fuck WOULDN'T you butter the underside of your toast when that's the side that will actually be coming in contact with your tongue's taste buds? You just sound like you're ignorant and afraid of trying new things.

        was almost talking sense though he seems to be a bottom butterer and well, that's not my jam.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Fucking butter-up morons who want their tastebuds to grind up against their shitty filth crusted loafs they pantomime as bread instead of the creamy dairy delicacy they spent what is probably half their pathetic paycheck procuring. Your kind should all be gassed

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >bottom butterer's out of nowhere
        mental illness

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Things that actually cause bitter opposition between people aren't trivial by definition.
        No, they often are trivial, they're just connected or symbolize things that are very serious.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Buttering a single side of your toast is first world war rationing propaganda

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Gullivers Travels

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Big-endians move on, /tg/ is a Little-endian board.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Word order in prayers, you say?

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Skub vs anti-scub.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      OP had better not, I don't even want to think of a world where fucking skubbers still draw breath.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >even THINKING about adding skub to his setting
      good settings dont have that shit

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There is literally nothing wrong with Skub.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >a fantasy setting
    I've been to the U.S., it's not fantastical.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Read about the "narcissism of small differences"

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This might not entirely fit trivial, depending on how you look at it, but:
    Ancient hyper advanced empire to which at one point both races belonged to built their world's equivalent of Deep Thought from H2G2, with a small difference.
    After giving its answer in verbal form, the computer shut off and didn't elaborate further.

    The races were born out of two groups that started a civil war, trying to interpret Deep Thought's words.
    According to one side, Deep Thought said "Forty-two", and 42 is the absolute, universal answer.
    According to the others, Deep Thought said "For thee, two", meaning the answer is 2 is the answer, but it only applied to some person or group present at the time.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Fuck you, anti-Skub!

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        have a nice day, disgusting skub-lover

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Part of the Great Schism was a dispute about whether or not communion wafers could have salt in them.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Do a Shia/Sunni split

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What is the subject of the split anyway?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Disagreement over who should succeed Muhammad. Shias hought it should be Ali (Muhammad's son in law), whereas Sunnis believed it should be Abu Bakr (Muhammad's father in law). Abu Bakr succeeded Muhammad, becomming the 1st Caliph, while Ali eventually became the 4th Caliph. But Shias still insist that Abu Bakr and the following 2 Caliphs don't count, so the succession is straight from Muhammad to Ali.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The Shia perspective makes more sense tbh

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >USER WAS BEHEADED FOR THIS POST

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Makes sense that they would behead someone for disagreeing; saying a father-in-law should inherit over a son is a savage, uncultured view. Inheritance goes downwards always.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That's only a small part of the story. Sunni and Shia also have large doctrinal differences.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >. Sunni and Shia also have large doctrinal differences.
            Those have only developed after the split though. The two groups split over an immediate issue, and over the last thousand years of separation they've developed different doctrines

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              And they keep fighting instead of reconciling because of doctrine.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >because of doctrine.
                That's kind of missing the point though. They had an inciting disagreement, that disagreement drove them apart, being driven apart caused them to develop differently, those developmental differences have kept them apart. The root cause of their bitter opposition is still a bunch of overblown internal politicking between the Companions

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Disagreement over who should succeed Muhammad. Shias hought it should be Ali (Muhammad's son in law), whereas Sunnis believed it should be Abu Bakr (Muhammad's father in law). Abu Bakr succeeded Muhammad, becomming the 1st Caliph, while Ali eventually became the 4th Caliph. But Shias still insist that Abu Bakr and the following 2 Caliphs don't count, so the succession is straight from Muhammad to Ali.

        the main difference between sunni and shia points of view is holiness.
        To the sunni, mohammed is a human like any other, what is special about him is that he got to be gods messenger. His family are all normal people.
        To the shia, mohammed is holy, and therefor his bloodline and family are holy. Thats why abubakr was seen as overstepping (he is human while Ali is holy) this extends to the fact they are more like catholics (with a pope who claims to be a descendant of ali) while the sunni do not have anything like that.

        ali and abubakr werent at odds, ali was seen as young and deffered to abubakr who was mohammeds closest friend (ali ends up as the caliph anyway). The first actual popularization of the shia sect was when the sons of ali where killed and the ummayads took over and made the caliphate into a monarchy instead of a the weird vote system they had(none of the original 4 caliphs made their son the caliph).
        In other words. The actual rift happened after the death of the sons of ali. And it mainly over the shia considering mohammed and his bloodline as holy. While the sunni considered this blasphemy, since holiness belonged only to their god

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >nogames gay makes a thread about nothing

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    ancient Rashomon, a "He said/She said" situation centuries past, retold and used as excuse for attacks so many times, no-one knows the truth

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Drazi in Babylon 5 decide on a government by dividing into two colored teams, the entire race, and kicking the shit out of each other.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      thanks, doc

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous.

      Oh, so like Americans.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Green

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        PURPLE

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I build a sci-fi RPG in our future that featured the great Cola war. Devided in Coca Cola and Pepsi. The battle to supply the whole galaxy.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Pepsi did have a substantial navy at one point

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        One mothballed ship with deactivated guns and no munitions does not a substantial navy make.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >One
          >He isn't aware

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Give them each a monotheistic religion that splintered from another older one. Historically that's the biggest cause of trivial bitter opposition among peoples.

    Their beliefs both evolved over a few hundred years from a similar tribal origin after both people groups split off, possibly because of foreign rule being imposed on one after an invasion, or because the original tribes split to two sides of a mountain or body of water. They were mostly cut off from each other long enough for both belief systems to evolve in different directions.

    But naturally they believe their traditions and stories are absolutes, things that never changed and happened just as written. The idea that an important religious figure could evolve in oral retelling over generations is blasphemous and would never be considered. The idea is purely alien to their understanding.

    This makes the mere existence of that other group's belief an existential threat. To them it looks like they stole bits of their own story, but both sides believe absolutely to be the original. Neither is anything like the original belief at the time they groups split.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Historically that's the biggest cause of trivial bitter opposition among peoples.
      Only in Europe, where it was mostly used as a smoke screen in various bids for land and power. Compare that to India, where the Hindus and Muslims are more then prepared to kill each other despite their religions having wholly distinct roots. Or compare it to China.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Only in Europe
        >he mentions Islam in the same sentence
        > t. retard

        The Islamic world has been at war with itself for 1400 years over a minor political dispute. They don't even believe different things, except who was supposed to succeed who.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >a minor political dispute
          You mean major doctrinal differences. It's clear you don't understand the Sunni and Shia

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Only in Europe
        When I wrote all of that I was literally thinking of several instances of it happening in the middle east. It happens everywhere. It even happened with various cults in the US like mormons.

        It seems more of an issue with monotheism than with other forms of belief. Or maybe it's just the kind of monotheism that came out of the middle east that's so cancerous to itself and its relatives.

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    That’s very original OP, nicely done

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The moon is inhabited in my setting, with tension between the traditional moon phases and the occupants of the dark side of the moon, mostly because the true king of the moon isn't there to quell the unrest. Instead it's just his halfling body double on the throne for now. I got the idea from that episode.

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Maybe a better analogue is soccer hooliganism kind of stuff? West Buttfuck United and East Buttfuck FC fans who fight each other in the street despite being in the same council estate ghetto or whatever?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >He doesn't know about the Blues vs the Greens
      Educate yourself on the history of hooliganism

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It is actually not entirely unreasonable to have something spiral out of control. Historically the Hatfield's and McCoys were a vicious feud that involved 2 large clans. While the exact reason for starting it is unknown, people think it has something to do with a stolen/killed pig last I checked.

    Personally I think it comes down to a particular shitty personality trait. I knew a guy who repeatedly made serious grudges with lifelong friends over incredibly trivial things multiple times. He held onto them while the other people basically just said "um ok... Well later then".

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Trojan War style. Have a conflict begin because someone important fucked another important someone's bitch, and they dragged as many people into the fight as they possibly could.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Helen was the queen by inheritance; the King of Sparta was only king because he married her, not the other way around so she was very important.
      There were other layers too such as pacts between leaders about the Spartan marriage when all were vying for her hand (making it closer to WW1 with its defensive pacts) and of course godly meddling and religious concerns.

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Have one race be fans of D&D while the other are GURPS fans.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Anon, OP said it had to be trivial.

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I had a plot for that in my setting's Dwarf/Dark Dwarf mountains, where the two were at centuries-long war over which one had the stronger natural ore in their caverns, with the Dwarves having a more defensive-oriented metal while the Dark Dwarves got offensive bonuses in theirs.

    The good guy solution of course was to create an alloy of both substances and display to both kingdoms how it embodies the best of both of their cultures, something a unified hillfolk kingdom could do for them.

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It occurs to me you could use the ultimate real world example of arch duke Franz Ferdinand. an incredibly minor noble who's death started ww1.

    Killed by literally the luckiest assassin/revolutionary, a few people decided to do some power plays for his spot which they used some old treaties for back up. Escalated as more and more old treaties got brought into play as more people got dragged in till basically everyone had been dragged in based on something their great great great grandparents had signed.

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Magazines vs Clips.

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Knees vs. vents.

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Sneeds and Chucks. Sneeds like to use feed and seed as currency. Chucks on the other end, use fuck and suck.

  32. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A dwarf stole three of the elf queens hairs

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I haven't read Tolkien in over twenty years, but wasn't it a boon he requested?

  33. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    dicks vs pussies

  34. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The first think that the second stole a spaceship.
    The second think that the first one stole a spaceship.
    The truth is both space sheep just went away together.

  35. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So you want hamhanded allegory instead of something to get invested in.

  36. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Which end to break the egg on.
    Gulliver's Travels was based.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >muh isekia garbage

  37. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    seems like somehting reddit would enjoy

Your email address will not be published.