How To Make Good, But Not Nice

[bethany81707]

I'm working on a story concept involving exploring both factions in a war. While there is a clear-cut hero and villain country in the visible conflict, I'd like for it not to be quite so clear-cut. The 'villain' country has some ideas ready-made, but I'm not so confident on how to present the 'hero' country with shades of gray. So far, it's limited to how the nation is conquered in the ending.

[Augestein]

The easiest way to have shades of gray in a story is to make both sides have equal weight to their claims. If the villain country for instance is trying to conquer another country for its supplies for instance, this is a good reason to try to conquer another country. Of course the hero country can easily argue that they do not wish to be controlled and don't wish to trade (suppose that they are an isolationist styled country), but it also has the hero country turning a blind-eye to the villain country and not caring what happens to villain country. Already the villain country can be somewhat sympathetic as hard times have hit the country which is forcing them to behave so aggressively. The motive isn't entirely selfish here.

Neither country is inherently wrong here as they are attempting to do what's best for them in their situations, and the hero country is simply trying to defend their homeland-- which is not an inherently evil act in and of itself. Even if it comes at the detriment to others.

Another way to make the hero country less "innocent" though, is to simply have an ensemble cast and have several people having various motivations that can paint certain behaviors in different lights. Perhaps the hero country isn't truly isolationist, but rather wanting the lands that the villain country has, but realizes that if they let the people starve to death, they don't have to fight a war (but rather simply defend themselves) and can still sweep through the lands when the villain country is desperate enough to give up and allow themselves to be controlled by the hero country. It's not a bad plan even if it's a bit questionable on a morality scale. Or... For fun's sake, you could try writing the story from the "villain" country perspective, which would inherently make shades of gray from the fact that you don't want to see the "villain" country lose because you've established that the characters within the villain country aren't bad people, just born in an unlucky situation. 

[Spoiler Alert]

I'm no expert in moral grey areas but I'll go ahead and say what I've got.  I think the biggest issue you can run into with grey areas is if you have too much grey, then it becomes more a question of “why should I cheer for anyone in this story?”.

I'd say the best approach is to start big and focus on the overall themes of what you want your story to convey, next work on the motivations of the nations as a whole, then work on the individual motivations of the characters involved, and finally allow them to bounce back and forth among each other.  Starting simple and broad before going into details can make things easier to change if one idea doesn't work out. Try to make room in the story for the heroes to make the wrong decisions, and the villains to make the right decisions without mixing up who we should be cheering for in the end.  It may also help to look up some examples in media that have pulled this off well before.

A video game example I can think of comes from Knights in the Nightmare.

Spoiler

The main character is obviously among the good guys, but there are times during the story where the MC made some cruel decisions.  

The story painted it that the MC’s actions were for the greater good, or at least in what they thought was the “best interest”.  However, this led to a few lesser villainous characters sometimes rightfully opposing the MC.  Despite any points made, there was bigger evil afoot and the lesser villain refused to stand aside so things came to blows.  

In the end it was a classic “good guys win” scenario, but it left a bitter taste because the MC continued in their cruel actions.  It got to the point were even the narrator of the game calls them out saying (paraphrasing for spoilers): “How many bodies do you plan to leave in your wake in order to reclaim what’s yours?”  Not putting down the cause they’re fighting for, but how they’re achieving it. 

It also created some sympathy for the lesser villains.  "They were clearly in the wrong, but is the MC really any better in this case" or "the MC didn't do much to stop things in the first place" kind of feeling.

 

 

Edited April 9, 2017 by Spoiler Alert
Added a sentence

[FionordeQuester]

How to make "Good But Not Nice"?  I'd say that boils down to writing a character with no empathy.  None whatsoever; not for the bad guys anyway.  Make someone who will treat his "law-abiding citizens" well enough, but demonizes the trouble-makers.  Make them the sort of enforcer of Justice that says stuff like "the only way these animals will know rest is a bullet between the eyes" or "best thing to do is to lock 'em up and throw away the key"

 

And there you go.  You've got yourself a character that's DOING good things...but not necessarily THINKING good things.  A hypocrite, basically.

[NekoKnight]

I hate to keep regurgitating my "I wish Fates was like this" ideas, but I  still want to see them in a story.

The hero nation could be racist and isolationists, so while they aren't aggressive to their neighbors, they won't help them at all. Perhaps they don't take prisoners and will kill foreigners who try to enter the country.

 

Another idea is to have the hero nation thriving, but at the expense of an oppressed minority.

Edited April 20, 2017 by NekoKnight

[bethany81707]

47 minutes ago, NekoKnight said:

I hate to keep regurgitating my "I wish Fates was like this" ideas, but I  still want to see them in a story.

The hero nation could be racist and isolationists, so while they aren't aggressive to their neighbors, they won't help them at all. Perhaps they don't take prisoners and will kill foreigners who try to enter the country.

 

Another idea is to have the hero nation thriving, but at the expense of an oppressed minority.

That first idea is basically what I'm settling on- when, after the aggressions, she meets with the king of the invading nation, she basically tells him "You could've told me this sooner" and turns him away.

[blah the Prussian]

3 hours ago, phineas81707 said:

That first idea is basically what I'm settling on- when, after the aggressions, she meets with the king of the invading nation, she basically tells him "You could've told me this sooner" and turns him away.

And could turn him away because she knows at that point that the war has gone on for too long, and her people would never accept having to give food to the people who invaded their country.

[henrymidfields]

How about this from a more domestic and modern situation?

Spoiler

 

A monarchy's imperialist establishment from have waged war decades ago. The trouble was, because it became unpopular domestically, the establishment faced a civil war from its own people. The revolting faction (with or without some help from outside nation) eventually managed to replace the previous establishment with a peaceful democracy (with or without a constitutional monarch) that lasted for ages. Decades later, the decendants and remnants of the imperialists tried to overthrow the post-war democracy.

The problem?

Spoiler

 

As it turned out, while the post-war democracy did lead an era of stablilty and prosperity for most people, there were two big problems. For the former imperialists and their families:

• laws were passed that severely restricted their rights in the name of national security,
• arrests were made without any recourse in supporting the spouses and children
• widespread discrimination from society relegated them to the lowest-paid jobs; perhaps enforcing an economic structure not unlike the globalist structure we have as a world today.

The post-war society was able to get away with this, as most people saw the persecution as what the imperialists deserved as punishment.

Also for the older generation who lived throught the pre-war era, they:

• were also discriminated (ageism) against, as they were perceived to have outdated views on society
• struggled to keep up with the rapid changes in society influenced by the post-war government in general (such as immigration laws etc)

Characterisation of the two factions

Spoiler

 

Thus, we have a varying range of neo-imperialists:

1. The villains who simply resented not being able to have their own narrow-minded vision of their country; bonus points if they are racist/sexist
2. The villains/anti-villains/heroes who struggled to keep up with the rapid changes
3. The anti-villains and the heroes who are decendants of the imperialists, made guilty by association, and have been severely persecuted as a result; may also include those formerly from the establishment who became disillusioned with the ongoing/systematic persecution.

Inevitably, we also should have a varying range of people from the establishments too:

1. The villains and anti-heroes who benefitted from the post-war economy/politics and simply want the current structure to continue; bonus points for villainy if their profit/power came from exploitation/corruption.
2. The anti-heroes who, perhaps from past injustices, have resented the imperialists to this day
3. The heroes, anti-heroes, and villains who have a unwavering belief in their current government, and does not understand why some "deviants" would even think about revolting against. The more villainous people from this faction will be more stubborn in their attitudes against the "deviants".
4. The heroes who also believe in the current government, but found out the awful truth, and thus became saddened/horrified at the persecution against #4 of the neo-imperialists, and want to reform the current government to address this issue.

 

 

Edited April 20, 2017 by henrymidfields