White and White Morality

[Ophiucha]

In the grand scheme of shaded moral conflicts, Good vs. Good is by far the least common. Gray vs. Gray? Hundreds of times. Evil vs. Evil? People eat that up. There are entire franchises built on the premise (see: Alien vs. Predator). Evil vs. Gray is the popular conflict of the cynic, and Good vs. Gray is the popular conflict of the idealist. We need not even discuss Good vs. Evil.

So where is all of the Good vs. Good?

Is it just not a conflict people enjoy? Certainly there is more Grey vs. Black than there is Grey vs. White. Is it just a general favouritism towards cynicism? Or, contrarily, do people view Good vs. Good as somewhat cynical, as it tends to rely on moral objectivism? And the usual: do you write good vs. good conflicts, any favourite books (or comics, games, movies, etc.) that rely on a good vs. good conflict?

 

[Steerpike]

There is an interesting book by Eve Forward called Villains By Necessity, which I suppose could be construed as Good v. Good, in a way. The idea is that it takes place after the forces of good have defeated the evil lord and the world is now safe from evil. And the 'good guys' have established a society based on their conceptions of what is right and good for everyone. The protagonists, as the title implies, are 'villains by necessity,' trying to restore a balance that was lost when the good guys started to control everything.

 

[Ophiucha]

I went to the Wikipedia page for it, and it sounds like my sort of story. Also, I'm a huge fan of Eve Forward's dad's science fiction writing. It's nice to see the kids of writers taking up the trade. Thanks for the rec, Steerpike.

 

[Steerpike]

I went to the Wikipedia page for it, and it sounds like my sort of story. Also, I'm a huge fan of Eve Forward's dad's science fiction writing. It's nice to see the kids of writers taking up the trade. Thanks for the rec, Steerpike.

Nice. I don't know another person who even knows who Robert Forward is, except for an older science fiction writer I know. He wrote some very interesting stuff.

 

[Jabrosky]

And how would Good vs Good work? What would be an example of such a conflict?

 

[Ophiucha]

Two sides with morally good views at conflict with one another. An easy example would be somebody doing something objectively good, but unlawful, versus an uncorrupted police force. For example, if you knew that destroying an ancient Egyptian artefact would protect the world, you would need to break into a museum, steal it, and destroy said artefact and all the archaeological interest it holds. If the police tried to stop you, they wouldn't be evil - or even gray - for doing so. They'd be stopping somebody trying to rob a museum.

Another example could be differing priorities. Let's say there is only one watering hole left in the world, one which would dry up if too many people drank from it. Two clans or families or whatever you like fighting over it. They can't share it, or they'll both die. But neither is evil or gray for wanting keep their family alive. A war of necessity as opposed to greed.

 

[Feo Takahari]

I was certain there'd be a link to the TV Tropes page.

 

[Caged Maiden]

And there it is!

 

[Christopher Wright]

It's really tricky to pull off well. If you have genuine good v. good conflict, then ultimately the good guys lose (well, one of them) and if the intent is for the reader to sympathise with both equally, then ultimately it's an unhappy ending. The ways writers have tried to work around this tend to devalue the original concept--for example, you make one side less sympathetic, but then even if it's *technically* good v. good you still make it easy for the reader to ignore that and treat one side as proper villains. Or, in another example, the good guys fight the good guys until the end when they all band together to fight the REAL bad guys, but then you've done away with the good v good conceit altogether.

It's the kind of thing I'd like to see if it was done well but I think I'd be a little hesitant to try myself.

 

[Ophiucha]

There's a TV Tropes article for everything.

I guess, as I prefer darker stories in general, that I like the fact that one 'good side' has to lose. Everybody is good at heart and in intent, but there still has to be a "winner". I guess, in that regard, I like it because I find it much more cynical than the viewpoint that everyone is gray or black, which is what most grittier works tend to play off of.

I guess I'll toss out my story's premise, since it's good v. good (hence why I'm asking at all).

Spoiler: White Moon

The main protagonist is John Hawkwood. English mercenary, lead a band of mercenaries known as the White Company. They went where the money was, occasionally hopping allegiances when the gold was good. Hawkwood in particular is often lauded as a hero to Florence, though there are critics of the title. The main antagonist is Pope Urban V. Pope, in a story where we assume that God exists, already in a position of moral goodness. Excommunicates all the free mercenaries for occasionally betraying the Church, wreaking havoc in the countryside, etc., etc. The two main conceits of this: one, not every free mercenary was deserving of excommunication (but in his position, I don't present him as wrong to do so - it was either that or let them cause chaos), and two, excommunicating somebody from the Church turns them into a werewolf.

During the story, Pope Urban V is basically trying to keep Europe together, recommunicating (is that the word?) many of those who he's excommunicated, doing his Papal duties, really nothing morally wrong. He's doing God's work and at no point is he ever placed as morally in the wrong for doing so. I suppose, in the grand scheme of things, you could argue that he's a gray character, since - you know - he's a Pope. Pre-Renaissance Catholic Church wasn't fantastic in any regard, and there were a couple of crusades going on in Urban V's reign. But as far as his role as a character in this story is concerned, he's a good guy. At worst, a servant of God with a lack of foresight.

John Hawkwood, meanwhile, is presented as one of the "better" free companies. The historical accuracy of that one is... lenient, but again, as a character in the story, he's not plundering between battles, mostly because he's got one of the finest free companies out there, so they rarely need the money. His perspective is that Pope Urban V basically let loose a bunch of werewolves on the European countryside, and I'm thinking perhaps giving him a tragic death at the hands of his wolf side - his first wife, likely, since so little is known about her - that motivates him to seek revenge/justice. Again, I'm presenting him as morally good. At worst, a loveable rogue with a Jekyll and Hyde complex.

If either side is gray, it'd be Hawkwood. But I do my damnedest to make him seem like a good guy, and I think he's at least as good as your average fantasy protagonist seeking the same sort of justice.

 

[Ankari]

Both your characters seem to be grey. The fact that one is a mercenary is enough to label him as grey. Also, the Pope is grey for the simple fact that he knows what becomes of those who he's excommunicated. He knows what they will do as well. This knowledge is enough to not make him white.

 

[Ophiucha]

Now, you see, I would disagree. If we're sticking to colour metaphors, I don't think either is pure white, but gray? Much darker. And I think the only reason anyone'd be inclined to see either as gray is because you're comparing them to each other, instead of against the broader spectrum of good and evil. I mean, it's no divine calling or anything, but there's certainly been good guy heroes who've been soldiers, treasure hunters, and other forms of either gold-seeking or willing-to-kill undoubtedly good people.

Hawkwood doesn't kill anyone outside of battle, so I don't think he deserves to be tossed into the moral gray. At least not in this story. But, then, we have the whole "moral subjectivity is a necessity for good v. good" issue, and the question of whether soldiers are good or doing it for money is good. Also, the Pope didn't realize what would happen when he excommunicated the free mercenaries. Indeed, he doesn't learn the full extent of it until the end of the book. So I think he'd get the free pass.

 

[ScipioSmith]

And how would Good vs Good work? What would be an example of such a conflict?

In the Manga Mahou Sensei Negima, the second story arc revolves around an antagonist named Chao Lingshen, who has travelled back in time to reveal the existence of magic to the world in our present. By doing so she hopes to prevent the catastrophe that has riven the world in her time. She is very restrained in the pursuit of this goal, and never kills or even seriously hurts anybody. It's very telling that the heroes can't find an actual moral ground to oppose her on: it would be inconvenient for them if she succeeded but they can't actually say she isn't right. In the end their reason for stopping her is that it's their present, not hers, and they have a right to happiness in their own lifetime. Which is arguably selfish, but not actually wrong either.

 

[The Dark One]

It's an interesting question, but quite frankly, I don't think white v white is possible as a conflict.

If there is to be a conflict then either or both must construe the other as less than white...or there could be no conflict. In the end, genuine conflict has to come down to opposing isms and/or competition for finite resources.

It would probably be possible to dream up some anomalous machination that contrived some sort of white v white conflict, but how satisfying would be the resolution? Who would you barrack for?

I don't get it.

 

[Ophiucha]

In the end, genuine conflict has to come down to opposing isms and/or competition for finite resources.

Well, black v. black and gray v. gray are both popular and common conflicts, so the idea that people on the same side of the moral compass can't compete doesn't seem to be true in media universally. Certainly, often one side or both sides view the other as "less white", though even this is not universal in what few white v. white stories exist, but that doesn't mean the audience views either side as gray.

Also, you'd probably side with the protagonist, since they're the one you see more of, but if you side with the antagonist... I mean, that happens a lot in fiction. There are plenty of people who like the X-Men series who side with Magneto. Hell, there are people who like the Harry Potter series who side with Voldemort. I can't really see an argument against it being "what if I side with the antagonist more than the protagonist?" since that happens all the time, regardless of where they fall morally.

 

[Feo Takahari]

The smaller the conflict, the more easily it can be white v. white. For instance, maybe two people both want to get a job, but there's only one job opening.

 

[Ophiucha]

I wouldn't necessarily say "smaller", but definitely more personal conflicts. Grand conflicts are pretty hard to pull off, though I don't think it's impossible with the appropriate considerations taken into place. For instance, if you look at the premise of James Cameron's Avatar, I think you could make it good versus good with a few tweaks. Humanity needs unobtanium in order to survive - without it, they will all perish. The Na'vi don't want their world drilled through and destroyed to get the unobtanium, and they lack the technology to become spacefarers, as well. The simple change of not making the general a bit of an arse could easily make this story good versus good, and similar to your job scenario, just on a large scale. The Na'vi would have to fight the humans in order to survive, and the humans have to fight the Na'vi in order to survive. Personally, I would have liked the movie more if both sides were in the right instead of just making the humans seem like this pointless, destructive force.

 

[Ravana]

Hmm. I don't see any problem with "good vs. good"–not unless you consider "good" to be a synonym for "bland," or hold all conflict to be automatically "evil." It might make it more difficult to find something your characters would be led into conflict over, but Ophiucha has already pointed toward the most obvious: limited resources, be it food, water, land, mates, fuel, position, office… whatever. Opposing but limited ideological differences might be involved instead: to kick the example into the science fiction realm again, whether a starfaring civilization should expand outward or concentrate on inner development (actually, a very common theme), or whether new species encountered should be brought into the ambit of the dominant society or left to develop on their own (the old and persistently-violated "Prime Directive" of Star Trek, among other sources). Neither would be difficult to translate into fantasy… and neither involves "evil" per se, though in all likelihood most authors will overtly favor one above the other, thereby projecting personal moral judgments upon them.

"Conflict" can take on idealized form, as in chivalric romances: only willing participants fighting one another, abiding by a code of rules (no eye gouging, no groin shots, always accept surrenders, etc.)… this could even become ritualized to the point where both sides meet with equal numbers, equal arms, and so forth, with both sides agreeing to accept the outcome–at least for some agreed-upon period of time, before another challenge can be made. ("Every five years, my son, we meet our neighbors in battle to determine which of us is allowed to hunt bush-rats on the slopes of Mount Sumver." Better still: "…we meet to determine which of us shall mount the watch in High Tower. The loser gets saddled with that obligation for the next half decade.") In one-on-one situations, this is called a "duel"… not exactly much of a stretch in a fantasy setting. Or winning might be only by taking an opponent prisoner: killing one is an automatic loss on the tote board. Or the conflict could be carried out by parliamentary bodies, or in courtrooms, with no bloodshed required on anyone's part. Or in oratorical contests, or by music, or dance, or athletic matches, or cook-offs, or anything at all for that matter. ("Ha! My calligraphy fu is better than yours!") By charity works, if you really want them both to be "good." This may not what most fantasy readers find gripping, I suppose, but there's no reason it can't be written, and written well. (Hmm, again. I feel a challenge coming on.…)

Nor does moral subjectivity have to be involved, either in a good vs. good conflict or any other kind. All you need to do is have two societies with identical values… there goes the subjectivity, at least as regards one another. (How the reader will feel may differ, but at least it should be the same toward both sides.) You're still more likely to be able to generate conflict if both societies are scum, of course, but it won't involve subjectivity.

To recur to an example more common in SF again: imagine two groups who conduct all their affairs by strict logical rules (similar to Star Trek Vulcans… at least as they were theoretically supposed to be ); they agree on all the same principles, including that conflict ought to be avoided if there is any other acceptable solution to a problem. All you need do at that point is present a problem that has no mutually acceptable solution, and conflict becomes the logical outcome. Both sides would agree that the other side was "right"–if they didn't, their own side would be wrong in pursuing the goal as well. Both would also agree that, in the others' shoes, they would reject all other solutions. They'd sympathize with one another completely… up to the point where it would involve yielding to the other without being compelled to. Both would regret the necessity of the conflict, and the harm that will be brought about because of it, both to the others and to themselves (we'd usually call this "tragedy," I believe), but would nevertheless recognize the necessity.

And the ideal hero for such a story would be one who managed to find a way out of the conflict that had been overlooked, or perhaps previously absent. So even happy endings are possible. (Though beware deus ex machina here.)

 

[Ravana]

@ Ophiucha: the easiest way to make a group of mercenaries "good" is to have them be loyal to their contracts—i.e. they don't change sides if they get a higher offer. Which, really, makes sense for them to do, if they want to stay in business for long; otherwise, they could run out of a client base willing to hire them fairly quickly. (Not all of them realized this historically, of course.)

Also, mercenaries were often the troops least likely to engage in unpleasant acts against a populace, as they were getting paid better to begin with, and weren't a bunch of terrified conscripts seeking adrenaline release post-battle. In other words, they acted "professionally"—because they were professionals. This, too, was far from universal; a lot depended on how the mercenaries were recruited in the first place. Were they Reislaüfer, Landsknechte or condottieri? Or were they just the tribe from across the river, getting paid to create grief for one's opponents by whatever means they found most feasible or ready-to-hand? The former, while far from universally "good," would often at least agree on certain conventions of war… in particular how to treat one another when they met, though they might have a different set of rules for how they treated national armies. The latter, often from different cultures altogether, might have very different ideas for how to "properly" conduct a war.

On the other hand, if mercenary pay fell into arrears, they could also be the most likely to engage in unpleasant acts: if the employer was luckier than he deserved, they'd only ravage enemy country.

I could see a society—not one well-fitted to your story, unfortunately—where the only soldiers were mercenaries. All battles get fought between small, well-paid, professional volunteer forces, who conduct warfare amongst themselves by agreed-upon conventions. And when they'd decided who had won a particular battle, that was it, end of story; no rematches, no escalation, no interminable wars ruining countrysides and treasuries… because anyone who disagreed with what they determined the outcome to be would end up facing both forces. If not every mercenary company within a hundred leagues. With none of the mercenaries willing to take a contract to defend him.

Note that in the end, the condottieri became rather too accepting of "agreed-upon conventions," often seeing no point in actually fighting one another. Which in the end became their downfall, as that's what their employers, perhaps naturally, felt they ought to be doing.…

 

[Ophiucha]

Goodness, Reaver. O_O Way to weigh in on the conversation.

I certainly agree with all of your points, in the first post. Low stakes storylines, or the absolute highest stake storylines, allow for a lot of room for equally moral characters, and certainly under the right circumstances, even happy endings. Getting a good 'team up in the end' story is tough, usually involving some tertiary antagonistic force (if not a villain, then a doomsday scenario, likely) which is slightly stretching the good v. good situation, but if done well, it could certainly be interesting. Well, unless the climax of your novel is a handshake. That might just be a bit boring.

On a less related note, I do think we need more low stakes fantasy. I'd love to see a couple of fantasy chefs have a cook-off. Tossing around Cthulhu tentacles and dragon's tongues and using magic to keep their soufflé from collapsing.



John Hawkwood was indeed a condottieri, and though he did hop allegiances quite frequently, he was inevitably commemorated in Florence for his service to the city, so there's certainly some history to work with in giving him a more steady allegiance. He even had a home there, and he was buried beneath the Duomo, which is certainly quite impressive. It's also worth noting that in the grand scheme of mercenaries, even the condottieri, the White Company (the band he led) was noted for being far less likely to desert the battlefield and go a-pillaging. And at least once he switched allegiances because his employer ordered the deaths of many innocents, which is a free pass. He's definitely got some dark spots, but I think playing up the city leaders who hired mercenaries as a little morally gray would keep Hawkwood from seeming too bad. They aren't the focus of the story at all, so it wouldn't change the dynamic of his relationship with Pope Urban V, and it would play into the loveable rogue archetype when it's brought up. Best I can do with what history gives me.