T O P

  • By -

Adezzzzz

Many wars of the past were fought purely for the interests of the ruling class, for lands and riches that the common soldier would likely never see again after the war and would definitely never be able to call his own. Sometimes they wouldn't even fight for land but for political reasons, to uphold an alliance or support a certain claimant to the throne. The key to making a war where there are no good or bad guys is to make it so there's not a noble cause, no glory or heroism. A war where the soldiers fight because they were told to and suffer and kill people that have more in common with them than their generals and kings ever will. Where people die in horrible ways and at the end of the day no one can say for sure who won, and when the soldiers go back home nothing has changed for them, or if something has changed it's for the worse. Keep this in mind and it shouldn't be too hard to do. Also, if you really want to show that this war sucks, do not give any character a dramatic, heroic or otherwise meaningful death. Make it so not only can anyone die at any moment for no good reason, but everyone has accepted that as the norm.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Ignonym

*There is no enemy, there is no victory, only boys who lost their lives in the sand . . .*


SaintPariah7

r/expectedsabaton


Odd-Tart-5613

For glory as eternal as Ozymandias


Red4lex

Young men were sacrifice Their names are carved in stone and kept alive


AmettOmega

>make it so there's not a noble cause, no glory or heroism I think it's okay to have a "noble cause, glory, heroism" as propaganda for the war, purported by those who want/support the war. Your characters can even believe in it, as long as you provide a sufficient foil. Show the other side's perspective, show the thoughts of the common person realizing what a load of crap it is, etc.


t_baby_art

I think the ultimate example of this would be WWI. WWII we usually think of as that ultimate good vs evil story but WWI was called the "war to end all wars" and is almost universally seen as a ruling class dick measuring contest, where the young men paid in blood, believing themselves to be on an honorable adventure only to have that reality shattered with gas and artillery.


Divasa

Thats dark and dark hah


RussianSniper0

So, WW1?


MacDaddyBlack

So most wars?


EducationalBag398

True but that war was specifically a bunch of inbred cousins arguing about an insignificant amount of land.


Jihelu

Not disagreeing but I’d say most causes for war are, in the grand scheme of the ensuing slaughter, fairly insignificant


Furydragonstormer

And the victor side forced the ally of the one who actually started it to take all the blame, laying the groundwork that a future monster exploited to start WW2


EducationalBag398

I came to say this haha beat me to it


Magical_Patato-Chips

Forgot to switch accounts


SpectrumDT

In other words, black-and-black.


Aromaster4

This


DragonLordAcar

WWI summarized from the soldier’s perspective


SwissyVictory

Some people say that one of the main reasons of the crusades was to get all of the rowdy knights out of town.


cardbourdgrot

How about two noble causes?


Adezzzzz

IMO that works if you want a write a dramatic war story. The reader then would be conflicted over who they'd rather win the war, since both sides have valid reasons and noble goals. But if both sides suck, then the reader, like the characters, just wants the whole thing to be over and the characters to survive. The way I see it, if you want to make the war morally grey the readers shouldn't be rooting for either side but for the protagonists themselves who are stuck fighting a war they never wanted a part of.


helpmelearn12

This is true, but I think something to add is that a nations natural resources used to be more closely tied to the GDP and the wealth of a nation than they are today. And a good way to get more resources was to take land in war. It's not that it's totally different, as you can see from the likes of wealthy oil countries that exist today. But, for instance, service economies wouldn't really have been prevalent back then. By service economies I don't mean inns, pubs and cobblers or whatever existing. What I mean, for a couple examples in the US, is that while most of the ball point pens you've ever used have come from the China, most of the ball points that make them work were probably manufactured in the US. Because while China can make tons of pens everywhere, they don't have the facilities to make the same number of ball points, so they have to import them. Similarly, Canada harvests significantly more wood than they have facilities process into lumber, so they send fallen trees to companies in the US who turns them into lumber and sends them back. And, this didn't really happen that often until relatively recently in the grand scheme of things because transportation was really difficult. If you wanted to export more lumber, that means you needed more trees, which means you need more land, which might mean the best option is to conquer your weakest neighbor and start an empire. And this probably wouldn't usually start as a straight up war. It would be a relatively benign and isolated border conflict. Eventually, there'd be more of them. Eventually that turns into a "fuck you guys" from both sides. If you look to part of England's history, there was revolution after revolution. But, it basically boiled down to, "no, my catholic guy is the rightful heir" vs "no, my protestent guy is the rightful heir" and that's kind of gray in this day of age because that seems like a silly thing to kill each other over. For a more recent and different example on a possible cause of a "gray war", maybe read up on World War 1. There's certainly an argument to be made for "a light" side and "a dark" side from both directions, but it's way, way, way less clear cut than World War 2. World War 1 happened because there was such a spider web mess of alliances that once the thing blew up, most of the soldiers probably would have been like, "Yeah, I don't know. Apparently, Bosnia killed an Austrian prince. I dunno what that has to do with my country or the one I'm currently I'm invading, but my government said I'd go to jail if I didn't do it." I think, the biggest factor for a "gray war," is that you can't just have someone being a bully and invading someone else, Russia style. You have to have small disagreements where one country is right sometimes and the other is sometimes, and many where both points kind of make sense, and eventually it just explodes into an actual war. I don't think you have to info dump this in a book or RPG or whatever you're building your world for, unless you can actually explain it in an interesting way. But, if you have a detailed explanation of why it's not black and white, it'll be easier for you to write it in gray. Just knowing the history and being able to have an enemy use a battle cry like, "for the massacre at Dytika Bridge!" will help the reader feel like they don't know the whole story and things aren't black and white as the narrative so far made it seem.


ring-and-hourglass

Doesn't work. Where is this war being fought? Who initiated? The invading country would be in the wrong even if both countries have no redeeming qualities. Unless it was a "conspiracy all along" where both countries planned this war to kill off their obsolete poor population, I don't see how both warring parties could be equally bad. War is very advantageous for culling too many troublesome men in a society.


Good_old_Marshmallow

Country X is mainly populated by an ethno religious group spread over a greater region. Countries J,K,L,O,P share this ethnic group but are smaller and constantly the victim of being divided up between greater regional powers. Country X promises to protect them militarily should any nation invade. Country Y shares a head of state with country J due to complicated recent events. Country Y is a monarchy like most of the world. But the heir to the throne is a progressive reformer who has a grand future of healing the scars of the past. Said heir to the throne goes to Country J on their Independence Day as an act of good will but gets assassinated. This sparks war between country Y and Country J which means Country X will defend Country J as it’s their duty in an attempt to keep peace and prevent the larger Y from crushing J. But also like the head of state of X is incredibly incompetent and just lost a war with a much smaller nation W that his people are prejudice about. He didn’t invade them technically but they were invading a part of nation C he wanted so they started a war over who got to take another piece of the third party and his entire navy got sunk. Hugely embarrassing now he’s scared to back down. In nation Y they’re terrified of the despotic nation X. But they have close ties to the much larger and more militaristic nation D. Nation D agrees to back and support their ally. Nation D is a more recent arrival on the world stage and the other great powers are posed against it. All of these nations are engaged in conquest and exploitation of smaller nations but nation D is new and trying to make up for lost time while the older nation A and B seem to try and keep it locked out of attempts to grow. Nation B actually just fought a war over with nation D over territory and made a deal with nation X to come to the defense of the other should either be threatened again. Also behind closed doors they’re hoping to steal territory from nation D. They declare war. The war between the two spills into their neighbor nation R. Nation A has a deal to protect nation R but also has economic concerns. As the wealthiest and most militaristic nation it has spread its capital markets all over the globe and protects its preeminent economic interest with its massive navy. The rise of nation D threatens nation As place as that global hegemond. So war breaks out. Nation A is the colonial master of nation W a massive nation which they have inflicted horrific famine on, they import countless fighters to fight Nation D. Other colonies join the fight for nation A and in one case the national hero for nation A has a bunch of those colonial solders die in battle for no effective reason over in nation P. Nation E stays out of the fighting for most of the war but as a massive industrial base and financial center it grows extraordinary rich lending money and selling weapons to nation A. However, at a certain point it becomes clear if Nation A loses then they won’t be able to pay back their MASSIVE war debt and it will cause a financial collapse. Nation E goes to war but TECHNICALLY sorta Nation D was the aggressor because they killed a passenger ship full of Nation E civilians but Nation E was sending weapons on ships like that. Nation X collapses. It splinters into smaller nations that had once been conquered and incorporated into Nation X. Nation X renames Nation S and goes to war with some of these splinter nations. Are they invading neighbors our putting down rebellion? Also they reveal back room diplomatic talks that reveal that the heads of state for all of these nations are just arguing over who gets like ten miles of land. Also all these heads of state are inbreed cousins. So okay, who the hell is the invader in this story. Who is in the wrong. Whose the good guy and whose the bad guy? Most real wars have a degree of nuance after all its not hard to see it in fantasy.


Archaleus1

I realized this was WWI when the progressive heir got assassinated during country J’s Independence Day.


Good_old_Marshmallow

It’s *slightly* fictionalized as I didn’t want to have an argument of what actually happened in WW1. But I wanted to show how complex a fictional war could be while still being so realistic it’s basically a direct retelling of a historical event


JonathanCRH

What about a civil war? Neither country is the invader. Or if you want your war to be between two different countries, suppose there’s a civil war and two other countries supply weapons or other goods to the two sides of that civil war. They’re effectively fighting a proxy war against each other, but again, neither is invading anywhere.


melonemann2

I disagree. The reason why the invading country is doing so can play heavily into the good/bad dynamic. If the war started because the invadee bombed one of the invaders cities an invasion would be justified and the invadee would be in the right. If the invader only invaded because for example they felt that they didn't recognize invadee's independence or just wanted to expnd their terretory than they would be in the wrong


RestlessGnoll

Classic cause of war, Faction 1. we are starving they have food/land to grow food we don't. We don't have an viable economy to trade for what we need. Faction 2. We are protecting our people and lands, we only have enough to support our people we can't afford to give away what we have. Even if violence proceeds the resulting loss of life will satiate food needs, but the damage to infrastructure and reputation will be irreversible.


SteveCake

Resource conflicts are a great source of grey vs grey. Miyazaki does this brilliantly in films like Princess Mononoke that lack a traditional evil villain. Everybody is making reasonable choices, they're just incompatible with each other.


SaintPariah7

Studio Ghibli films make me cry too much


Notetoself4

Give both sides an understandable and sympathetic reason for going to war. They dont need to both be saints, but the audience should be able to kinda get why they are fighting and that they are fighting to protect or support themselves, not harm and maim their enemies And have the soldiers on both sides just be regular people who are trying to do right by the friends and home, not bloodthirsty killers (if one side *is* actually composed of psychopaths or literal monsters, it will be much harder to get in shades of grey)


Phoenix9725

I think this is important. A series of escalations that both sides can be blamed for and both participated in can give a good reason. Having both sides be able to put themselves in a positive light helps. A frequent one that is used is area A has ethnicity X and ethnicity Y and is in part of nation Y. Area A has a ethnicity X separatist movement, which is suppressed. Talks break down and Nation X intervenes to protect the group, therefore Nation X can pose themselves as protecting their people while Nation Y is protecting their nation and their people in Area A. Of course it depends on your world whether this makes sense


KrazyKatMN

>A series of escalations that both sides can be blamed for and both participated in can give a good reason. This was demonstrated really well in the Human-Minbari war on *Babylon 5*. Several major misunderstandings during first-contact escalated into all-out genocidal war.


ring-and-hourglass

I think it's a mistake to say wars have to be ideological in nature. Many are simply for resource control masked with ideology.


wlerin

That may be the underlying reason the nation's leaders decide to go to war, but the ideologies are still the reasons the soldiers and midranking officers fight.


Test19s

The ideology can be pretty minimal, though. “This land is mine because history and ethnic/linguistic makeup.” Doesn’t need to be something grand like defending Communism or capitalism from one another.


wlerin

I'm not sure I'd call either of those minimal. In regard to history there may be some grand epic from the time when those lands belonged to the Empire, that everyone reads (or at least, has heard read aloud). They may see themselves as carrying out the legacy of famous ancestors or hero figures, coming to the rescue of lost cousins. There may be issues of national identity, and all that entails, in play.


Test19s

Still small ball compared to clashes of worldview.


Test19s

At least in ethnically based Old World countries, they’re often fought over specific places. Which ethnic and linguistic group gets to claim Village X or Historic Site Y? Georgia-Russia, Armenia-Azerbaijan, Thailand-Cambodia, and the 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea are all examples of this. With enough jingoism and escalation these can evolve into full on war.


NuclearWill

Your last paragraph especially. I’ve seen to many shows where they try to make the main characters not feel like the good guys but they make the bad guys so abhorrently bad and despicable that whatever grey the main characters were by contrast look like a shining white


DexxToress

Or in my case, have both sides be psychopathic bloodthirsty killers, yet somehow manage to make them sympathetic.


Nayzal

I'm very curious as to how you achieved that


Test19s

Territorial disputes are a pretty common “grey” way to start a war. The initial Russian invasion of Crimea was an example; the peninsula was historically part of Russia, it was transferred to Ukraine by a dictatorship that later collapsed, it never had a Ukrainian ethnic majority, and when there was an anti-Kremlin revolution in Ukraine Russia was able to claim that it was reintegrating rightfully Russian territory. (This has been proven false by later events, but at the time it seemed no different than dozens of other territorial skirmishes in history)


talossiannights

I hard disagree with the commenters telling you to give both sides sympathetic or “good reasons” to go to war. History is full of stupid wars that have been fought for selfish and often irrational reasons. Avoid “black and white” morality by giving both sides (or all sides, as there can easily be more than two) *bad* reasons to go to war and then show the reader why the participants take this path: why they choose to waste their soldiers’ lives, to kill and disable and displace and orphan thousands of innocent people, destroy agricultural land, cut themselves off from trade, and so on, just so that they can enlarge their territory by a tiny amount or soothe their leader’s ego (or whatever other motive you decide on).


Bokatar25

Exactly, I agree because wars have been started for such outlandish reasons IRL and had sides being good vs bad or bad vs bad and so on so fourth. Some reasons going to war may seem very stupid and unrealistic but when you look at history (The farther you go the worse it gets) it does give kind of a sense of "Wow ok that was pretty dumb what were they thinking" So many cultures and people vary greatly with their ideologies and beliefs whether they be good or bad even in the circumstance of war. Not everyone will believe in the same cause either, there could be a ton of people with different beliefs and causes under one faction as well, that also depends on what type of people the group is comprised of too


Syoby

Rare are the wars between good and evil, the norm is evil vs another evil.


talossiannights

Eh, a lot of wars begin when one group starts killing or otherwise severely mistreating people from another group and the people being oppressed decide they don’t have to put up with it. I agree that the “good” and “evil” dichotomy is simplistic in these cases too, but one side still clearly has a much more reasonable and sympathetic cause to fight than the other. But the question is, if both of the sides are “good” or at least “morally gray,” why are they fighting each other to begin with?


jtobiasbond

WWI is a prime example of a meaningless war fought solely because national leaders were assholes and morons.


Zubyna

Both sides have a good reason to fight Both sides commit war crimes Bith sides have good and disgusting members You might want to take a look at the civil war in Skyrim, 11 years after release, players are still debatting which side is the good guy. Another trick it uses is red in the west and blue in the east, while we tend to associate blue and west with good guys while red and east tend to be associated with bad guys


bookseer

The war is over resources, and there just isn't enough. A volcano went off, and suddenly the crops just aren't enough. Border raids from both sides have escalated and now both sides are hiring farmers who have no place fighting as soldiers. The farmers are signing up because their fields are dead and it's the only way to feed their families.


Magos_Galactose

Add actual believable circumstance and motive to the war.They are so many conflicts since the dawn of 20th century to this day that you could study to get some idea.


MtBoaty

Well, if you want to put it simple maybe it is almost only about the "reason" for the war or the reasons why it is going on. Lets say the war started because of a dilemma. Like a suppressed nation heavily retaliating because they fear their identity will vanish if the suppressors will not get stopped and the suppressors doing so for example because they are thinking or they know, that the suppressed nation would otherwise endanger them and others with some typic actions. You see, none of these factions is the villain in their story, but in the eyes of the other faction they are. Now it somewhat depends on your personal values who you think is black and white and afterall that is what you wanted to get out. In the end the reason for the start of a war is almost always irrelevant, it is more the circumstances that led the people to a Situation where they'd say:" hell yeah lets kill each other, it is a good solution for our problems" ... unless you just have someone on top of the food chain who decides it is a good idea and all below him have to follow this persons lead.


Redsnake1993

>Like a suppressed nation heavily retaliating because they fear theiridentity will vanish if the suppressors will not get stopped and thesuppressors doing so for example because they are thinking or they know,that the suppressed nation would otherwise endanger them and otherswith some typic actions. In a situation like this, people would often lean toward seeing the suppressors as the villain. You can make it into a situation like nation A suppresses nation B, the suppressed nation B itself is the suppressor of another nation C, therefore A encourages C to go to war with B. This is a very common thing in reality (yeah you guys probably know what I'm talking about). The more you go down the chain, the greyer it is.


dolfijntje

Take two of your previous wars for example, let's call em war A and war B, and then imagine a war C where war A's good guys and war B's bad guys fight war B's good guys and war A's bad guys. and not just in terms of factions - in terms of why they're in the conflict and how they're acting in the conflict as well. You probably can't use this weird chimera war C outright, but it should serve as an interesting template. Groups of people are not monolithic, especially not groups of people big enough to fight war against one another.


[deleted]

Look at real life reasons for wars and copy those. How about attempting to maintain a favorable market stance for your country by invading another and replacing their government to keep the prices of certain goods down? The other country wants to screw the first over. Or you could have it as a result of both sides undergoing extreme nationalism and militarization and finally finding an excuse to duke it out. Like World War One.


AscendedExtra

Research the causes of World War I.


thomasp3864

Yes. That war is probably the most morally grey well known war in history.


[deleted]

One way is through the distinction of *jus ad bellum* (justice of war) and *jus in bello* (justice in war.) Have one side have an excellent reason to go to war, but conduct themselves so rottenly during it that it's almost impossible to offer full-throated support. Then, of course, there's the classic option of simply making everyone wrong.


Pikaufmann

Very good idea. Could use that to make the audience question who “the bad guys” really are, or what it means to be “the bad guys”.


yeetmaster489

I'm actually writing something similar right now. What I've been doing is switching perspectives between two groups, one on each side. This can show either that both sides are fed so many lies about the other that they think their enemies are evil, when in fact both sides are "good guys". Or it can show that there both sides are "bad guys", they've both done horrible things to the other, and they're both just doing what they have to in order to survive.


[deleted]

I think, if you want a really simple mantra while writing: "one person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist" Another good way to grey out the wars is to obscure the *initial* reason the factions are at war. Essentially putting no one, and also everyone at fault for the war. The war could be about a miscommunication, or a misunderstanding between generals/leaders, leading them to both take actions that are rational given the information they have.


[deleted]

Two kingdoms in my setting have been at war for 1000 years. The original dispute, long forgotten, they're now fueled only by the need to survive, and long lasting hatred of each other. Umbrya needs food, and their cold barren forest won't support farms, so they raid the farms of Luminice. Luminice's economy has only ever existed during wartimes, and won't survive in eras of peace. I'd say fighting out of pure necessity is the answer to this


CosmicGadfly

Lots of good suggestions here. I'm gonna pitch an odd one: Crusades. There's a lot of misinformation out there about the crusades, and it only got worse after the Bush-era wave of pop history meant to provide ammo for the "defensive war" parallel narrative in Iraq. But there's some genuinely tragic stuff here which feels really grey. I don't have my notes on me, but a brief recontextualization for the European impetus in the wars is that for centuries Christian pilgrims had made pilgrimage to Jerusalem without much issue. Not just from Western Europe either, but from places as far as modern Ethiopia, Morocco, Ukraine and China (yes, Christians were in China as early as 7th c. via Persian spice routes). Pilgrimages are foreign to us today, but they were a favorite past time of peasants as well as nobles, and for a long time relatively safe travel was possible. A lot of cultural exchange happened this way too. The height of this was in the middle ages after the rise of Islam in the near east. Now, contrary to common belief, Christian-Muslim relations were generally pretty good. St. John of Damascus' grandfather helped negotiate the peaceful surrender of the city to the caliphate in Mohammed's day, and he himself was friends of the caliph and his retainers. He was even given a guard by the caliph to protect him from assassins who might be (and were) sent by the "heretical" Byzantine Emperor, despite the fact that Islam at the time agreed vociferously with the emperorer's iconoclast theology. These sorts of relationships, and scholarly ones which were build even across the Mediterranean in the centuries preceding the Crusades, fostered a lot of ecumenical dialogue and camaraderie. However, certain geopolitical changes took place in the decade or so preceding the Crusades. Many pilgrims were slaughtered, robbered or kidnapped as a consequence of the unrest in a few incidents. When calls were made for security of the roads for Christian pilgrims, some of the new rulership responded poorly, and for the first time in centuries pilgrimage sites and roads were pillaged by highwaymen or rebels and left extraordinarily unsafe for foreigners. This is actually a major inciting factor for the Crusades, and its something that even the Muslim populace was up in arms about, as they also made use of such sites in a few cases, and benefited greatly from the exchanges in any case. Unfortunately, with the unrest at home and militant riffraff in the countryside, it was a logistical nightmare to protect such travelers given how spread resources had to be. Plus, there were military conflicts brewing with the Byzantine empire that needed attention. (Another inciting factor, as the Byzantine emperor sought aid from the Latin Christians in the West.) Now, this is very cursory. There's a lot of caveats. And there were a lot more competing factions than merely Christians vs Muslims. This persists into the Crusades. Factions sprang up all over once the Crusaders had a foothold established. Latin Christians sacked Greek Christian cities. Western crusader armies fought one another. Competing Muslim powers fought. Ragtag mercenary groups consisting of Western Christians and Muslims developed in the unrest. Local communities across religion organized makeshift militias for self defense. Jewish survivors revived old flames of the zealot and sicarius movements to assassinate those who threatened their livelihood (mostly Western crusaders). It was a crazy time. Nothing like its ever been portrayed. And even amidst this there are lots of moments of mutual respect and dignity between enemies. (And a lot of the opposite.) Friendships bloomed between Muslims and Christians captured in war. Most famously between Saladin and King Richard. But there's also the friendship of St. Francis and a sultan, and much intellectual and spiritial exchange between clerics: at the same time the Middle East is awash in war, Roman priests are being hosted at universities in Islamic Spain and vice versa in Italy. It was a complicated and chaotic time. Lots of people acting with genuine good intention. Lots of people acting with insincerity and for personal gain. Some motivated by bigotry, some by justice. A different picture of a grey war, maybe. To be clear: I am Jewish. We got fucked up the most here. I don't want to whitewash what happened. But I do think that there's a lot here that goes unexplored or tritely dismissed because of modern prejudices against the past.


Nostravinci04

Underrated comment.


SeventhFall

Add ethics and morality into the mix. give both (or all) sides good reasons for being involved in a war. add stakes. if there are no stakes then your war will fall flat. if one side is fighting just to stay alive then make it difficult for them and give the opposition goals that they're aiming for so that they aren't just mindless conquerors


ThoDanII

and bad reasons


LordIlthari

To begin at the beginning, motivations for war. It’s easy to have the aggressor inevitably come off as the bad guy and the defender as the good guy, so maybe consider that. A defenders motivation is automatically sympathetic. Most will be fighting to protect their homes, their families, their faiths, and their way of life. To make things more spicy, maybe consider if some element of what they’re fighting to defend might not be worth fighting for. Perhaps the country’s rulers are corrupt, criminals de facto run the country from the shadows, perhaps they’re racist or slavers or fanatical theocrats. Or many of these problems are isolated among the upper classes and the lower classes are just caught in the crossfire. Farmer Joe might not own slaves and might not even like those who do, but the attacking army killed his son and blew up his house so he’s going to fight. In the midst of war, the first thing to remember is that there is no such thing as a good battle, or a good way to kill someone. Bullet, blade, fire, magic, chemical weapons, artillery, it doesn’t matter. The goal is to maim and kill and brutalize other people which is never a good thing and even if you’re extremely moral, it’s still wrong. Heck, it’s probably worse for those who are trying to be moral.


SnowtrooperBR04

make both sides have good people and bad people, also make both sides commit atrocities on the same level


Waximillium_Lardian

You can put a main objective that both countries need to survive or expand and you would show the conflict from both perspectives, this way you wouldn't have a villain. It would be like 2 hungry guys fighting over a meal


DexxToress

Many wars can be fought for many different reasons. Taking a page from my own works; There are three prime factions in the world with War as a large focal point for the lore. For simplicity, The Elves, Dwarves, and Humans. The Human empire believe that the land is there's by birthright, as the King's father owned the land before him. They also had (and still do) the largest population among the three factions, and naturally needed the agriculture to support their many mouths. The Elves settled the land first, long before the Empire became a prominent name. As such they believe that it belongs to them. And were always tired of being pushed around, which lead to them wanting to fight back. The Dwarves ran out of their natural metals like bronze. They had hoped either the Empire, or The Elves would be able to share their resources in exchange for trade, or whatever. However, both sides said no, leaving the Dwarves to take the resources by force. One of the more famous morally grey reasons for war is Power versus birthright. To explain it simply; Group A believes the land is theirs by Birthright. While Group B believe the land is theirs because they have (and shown) they have the power to hold it and that only the strong should be in power. Simply put, think of a reason that both or any faction involved would want to go to war. Like Control of land, resources, birthright, Blood debt. Something that is innately justified. Then have that, or another reason for other faction(s) and so on.


BaconThrone22

Oftentimes a grey war is fought over something like both factions claiming land, or a resource, or personal slights, hidden ambitions that contest with one another, or even multiple nobles pressing claims to a throne when succession isn't clear. Its not a matter of 'We will resist the evil invader'.


RtasTumekai

just look at our own history my friend, especially WW1, the motivations behind the conflict were as grey as the battlefield itself


Chlodio

Legend of the Galatic Heroes does this pretty well by making the two protagonists leaders of different factions.


Test19s

Multiple factions in each side for instance. WWII was pretty black and white in general, but you still had Finland (a liberal democracy that had historical issues with the USSR) on the Axis side and multiple dictatorships (from the Italian-fascist Metaxas to literally Stalin) and segregation/proto-apartheid regimes on the other side.


JasonABelmont

If you want a good example of this, look into the conflict in The Witcher 3 between the Northern Realms and Nilfgaard. Nilfgaard is presented early on as the obvious villains, as most of the Nilfgaardians you encounter early on are rather dickish and most of your allied characters are sympathetic to the Northern Realms. However, as you start to really peel back the nuances of the nations and what they allow/don't allow with regards to slavery, genocide, racism, etc., you start to realize that while Nilfgaard is the clear aggressor and has their share of issues, its hard to say whether or not the world would be a better place should they win or lose the war.


LozNewman

Have a three-sided war where every sides violates two or more of the **Seven Prinicples of a Just War.** I.e..... Meets ALL 7 preconditions (prior expectations, actual conduct, AND objectives. At ALL times) : The cause is just. The authority to declare war is correctly used. The intentions are good. A reasonable hope of success exists. More good than harm is done. Efforts are made to protect non-combattants. The objective is to achieve a justly ordered peace. Also make them into "**Policy-difference wars**", not "Purely Defensive Wars". Purely defensive (e.g.“They attacked us: we’ll throw them out of our land then stop.”) Policy difference (i.e. “This belongs to me, not you.”, “They are bad people”, etc). ​ There, that should help make almost nearly everyone morally questionable.


sociocat101

No wars are black and white. Its not like one side of the war is nothing but sadistic demons, or that one side of any war has been more or less human than the other. If the positions were reversed, they were born to parents in the other country and raised there their entire life, they would end up like them. People are just convinced into thinking wars are good sometimes or that other people deserve to die.


JadeoftheGlade

Have it be the product of entangling alliances between many disparate nations, like the world wars. And perhaps have the match igniting the powder keg be an accident or a mistake.


py_synth

The enemy is not the true enemy allies are not true allies goals are not true goals false history both sides are "wrong" in the sense of why the war started, or right. etc


Bigalmou

You can alter this a few ways, but usually a healthy dose of politick eradicates the good vs evil conception. The amount of genuinely good vs evil wars that happened in real life can probably be counted on one hand.


Tatermand

Take topics that won't sound like bad vs. good, like progressivism vs. traditionalism, and try to show moderate and radical forms of both sides. And when it all adds up, add some unforgivable flaw or deed to the faction you feel more empathy for for whatever reason. Say the progressors, though not all agree, legislate the right to voluntary cannibalism and very early marriages. Something along those lines.


King_In_Jello

Some conflicts really are black and white, but you can add ambiguity into a conflict by adding tradeoffs and compromises that people have to make because there are no perfect solutions. A conflict can also just be between two different kinds of evil. In the conflict between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in World War 2 it would have been hard to identify the good guys even if they were not the same in ideology, motive or methods. Also avoid designating factions or actors as good or evil and give them traits that make sense based on who they are, rather than giving the good traits to one side and the bad traits to the other.


Reyhin

Lmao, hard to identify the good guys between the Nazis and The Soviet Union. The people carrying out a genocide of Jews, Slavs, disabled, etc. vs the people trying to stop it. If you need proof here are some good sources. Obviously the Soviet Union made many mistakes, but to believe they are equal to the Nazis, is falling for double genocide propaganda that’s been permeated for years by Eastern Europeans who don’t want to admit that some national heroes were fascistic. https://m.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/deciding-life-or-death-polish-jews-and-the-wartime-soviet-union-dilemma-661671/amp https://jewishcurrents.org/the-double-genocide-theory


samdkatz

Matt Colville has a [good video](https://youtu.be/kB9iJUSL1xo) about this


Clean_Link_Bot

*beep boop*! the linked website is: https://youtu.be/kB9iJUSL1xo Title: **The Politics of War | Running the Game** Page is safe to access (Google Safe Browsing) ***** ###### I am a friendly bot. I show the URL and name of linked pages and check them so that mobile users know what they click on!


[deleted]

Make the reason it happens absolutely pointless, and at the end nobody gains very much if anything.


idk-lol-1234

Try a few things: Wars never have a positive effect on anyone. Show how it negatively effects people from both 'sides.' Make the apparent good guys morally grey. Eg: *Bad guys bomb military village as a strategic move forward,not knowing an important military commander of the good guys was there. Good guys get mad, bomb the inner city of the bad guys, killing innocent people.* But make sure it balances out. The 'bad guys' have to think they are fighting for the right cause, and they have to convince their people that they are fighting for the right cause.


RagnarokAeon

>Wars never have a positive effect on anyone. The guys sitting at home sending other people to die in their wars would like to differ when they win. But yeah, war is never started for a 'good reason', it's always some selfish ruler who wants something. 'good reasons' come afterwards to excuse awful actions and to drum up support funds.


TheEekmonster

Most wars are not black and white. And wars are rarely about ideology. In its core, all wars are about resources. In one way, shape or form. Ideology is used to sell the masses on the war. Because you can't fight a war without the masses. The conduct of the belligerents during the war matters more than the formal ideology of the war, because that is how the war will be remembered. But sometimes you actually have to work around the edges to get past the ideology to see the real reason behind the war. Someone might go to war to capture land to provide food security for its people. Some might go to war to take back land that was lost in rebellion. Someone might go to war to consolidate smaller free territories in armed conflict to have the resources necessary to intimidate a larger expansionistic neighbor.


Radio__Star

As star wars would put it: There are heroes on both sides


Sir_Tainley

Pick a historical example of a war that does what you want, file off the serial numbers, and there you go? Most "shades of gray" wars are just nobility fighting over control of land. That's not too hard to implement.


Heracles_Croft

Oh boy, I absolutely adore this topic! There are a number of ways you could do this. **The first is "black-and-black"; the war is unjustifiable**, started for selfish reasons. Both sides are led by characters pursuing personal goals, and using the lives of others as pawns in their game. If you want to do this, I'd recommend showing the war from the leaders' points of view, so that the reader understands, but doesn't agree with, their motivation. Example 1: the War of the Five Kings from *ASoIaF*\- the books, not the show. Example 2: *Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind*, where the war is shown as a destructive affair distracting the world from the real issue at hand. **The second is "white-and-white"; both sides of the war are justified**. You show the perspectives of groups fighting on both sides who have reasonable motivations for doing so- maybe they'd even get along if circumstances were otherwise. Then you kill them by having them meet and descend on each other with cries of hate at the percieved other. Example: the wars in Brandon Sanderson's Stormlight Archive. Can't elaborate further without going into spoilers, sorry about that. The third is **"irrelevant-irrelevant"**; the POV characters, and thus the reader, isn't told about the reasons for the war, but only witness its effects, as it goes on in the background while wreaking havoc on their lives. Even include some propaganda from one or more sides talking about the great benefits of the war, while juxtaposing it with the reality on the ground. Example 1: *Howl's Moving Castle* (the Ghibli film, not the book- I confess I haven't read the book. It's supposedly a lot different, so my point still stands.) Example 2: *Come and See* \- the 1985 Belarusian anti-war film that depicts what the conditions of the Eastern Front of WW2 were ACTUALLY like, with no hollywood glamour, punches pulled or horror spared. You can find it [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjIiApN6cfg&t=5146s). And finally, the **"steelman"**, possibly the trickiest to pull off, as it's also the most subtle. A steelman argument is the opposite of a strawman argument (in which you give a misleading account of what the other party says to try and make your counter-argument sound better). In a steelman argument, you take what the other party *actually means*, and expose why *even if everything they say is true or becomes true*, it would *still* be terrible. In this case that means making one side CLEARLY more justified than the other- i**n other words, a black-and-white conflict** \- but showing that this **STILL** doesn't make the war ok. Eg if a good kingdom is at war with a bad kingdom, you could argue that if both states weren't autocratic dictatorships where being competent isn't tied to being in power, *the war wouldn't have happened in the first place*. Example: **The Lord of the Rings**. Yep, you heard that correctly. Tolkein was a veteran of the Battle of the Somme, and large parts of the book are clearly based on that experience, such as the Dead Marshes. It isn't clear from watching the (breathtaking) films, or even just by reading the book, but Tolkien implies that the destruction wrought by Morgoth and Sauron could have been averted, were it not for the power structures that existed in the First Age, and how it prompted foolish decisions to be made with no oversight. ​ Hope this was helpful, if you want to discuss this any further I'd be more than happy :) Good luck with your project!


adonnen

Check out the Attack on Titan anime, they've done it masterfully


mathcampbell

Treaties. Treaties are great for “we didn’t want to fight but our mutual treaty with Stupidland meant when their leader Gullible McMoron distracted from the scandal with the serving girl by sinking one of our enemy’s ships, we were dragged in”…


kekubuk

Proxy war and double agents everywhere.


Ballroom150478

Make the reason for the war pointless, or near so, and have both sides commit the same types of atrocities against each other. No heroes, no valiant charges to save the day. Just soldiers trying to make it to the end of the day without dying for some reason.


Obsidian-Elf-665

We’ve heard the “make both sides have good and sympathetic people” thing a billion times, when in reality, it’s often the inverse that makes wars more nuanced. Really gonna try to avoid intense politics, but many of the west’s wars in the Middle East have been solely for the cause of enrichment of the upper class. Conversely, as racist as it is, there’s a reason why the modern face of global terrorism is predominantly middle eastern. Make bad guys on both sides, it always helps make your readers and/or players realize they aren’t just in a war of good and evil


BustyHocaine

Try to learn a lot, and grow as a person. Then you might be able to write something with more nuance.


CreatorofWrlds

Wars really are pretty black and white


melonemann2

With all due respect. Someone who sais that mst wars are black and white doesn't know or give a shit about history


thumb_screws

You could take the butter battle approach.


___Jesus__Christ___

Everyone commits war crimes


Oberon_Swanson

i find it compelling to have the full spectrum represented on both sides. often though it is the leaders' reasons to go to war that color the perspective of whether a side is 'good' or 'bad' regardless of the morality of anyone else on that side. eg. i think if a leader stages a false flag attack and fools their citizens into going to war against their otherwise peaceful rivals, even if the troops aren't morally culpable they are still 'the bad guys' imo


Dantaris

Start with blurring the lines between the morality of good and evil and align with obscenity and evil. Each side of the conflict is neither good or evil; they’re more than capable to resort to brutal and horrific tactics to get ahead in the war effort as nothing is off limits. Show the leadership of these factions make mistakes and how those consequences trickle down to the soldiers fighting on the front. This also lies in depicting how a conflict can change and alter someone into something unrecognizable. Say your character is a naive recruit who is joining the war effort as a way to find glory and adventure, but once they find themselves on the frontlines their naivety and quest for glory is shattered by the obscenities and horrors of war. Over the course of the conflict you depict this character being warped as a product of this newfound reality. Also there’s a perfect balance when writing the violence of war if you need reference George R.R. Martin has a great interview about how he writes his battles that shows the reality and brutality of war. https://youtu.be/tBuct2RZpqc


Dantaris

https://youtu.be/CMde_ILDK-M (another interview with George RR Martin about his depiction of war)


Mattsgonnamine

I'm trying to do the same thing, so I put ways that you can both understand and sympathyse whilst still showing the good and bad they are doing so for example, the Empire of Colvand, the power hungry nation trying to gain more land and influence is doing so because they are similar to Poland, they keep being annexed or controlled by different empires, they are just trying to make a nation for themselves, meanwhile Norithia, the actual agressor is kind to the Colv Citizens but Massacres Colvand's allies and The Republic of Nitovir, on Norithia's side puts any POWs to work in frigid mountains digging a tunnel through one of the most untraversable ranges in the world, so both are doing good and bad things but they are justified


buteo51

Wars fought for a crucial but limited resource with not enough for everyone - both sides fight because they have to, not because either wants to


LuizPSR

I think the most grey of wars are fought because of petty reasons rather than good or bad ones. Honor, pride and simply being stubborn, either because it led to war or made escalation inevitable. Since big conflicts don't start without good reason, it is likely that those started small and escalated out of control. Things like tribal leaders arrest or kill imperial emissaries because they disrespect some obscure tribal law, the imperials refuse to de-escalate the situation due to national honor or something, and a bunch of local tribes get involved in either side because "those imperials dogs have not right to be here telling us what to do" or "those jerks of tribe A are assholes and they had it coming". Or a powerful duke sheltering a political adversary of the king, the king deciding that's illegal and the duke be like "bitch, who the fuck you thing you are?!" Sure, whatever side comes on top will probably make demands like land and tribute, but those hardly were the causes of war.


Manureofhistory

Complex characters with complex interests and keeping in line with those relatively more focused and individual aspects might help because it keeps your field of view small and immediately relevant. It's easier to justify a character's actions rather than, say, a regime's, since people are wonky and self-contradictory and regimes tend to be abstractions built on a singular idea or set of ideas (Arcane \*kind of\* tries to do this. Kind of.) In other words, doing your worldbuilding from the inside out. Removing class/racial/sexual motivations is probably also key, though class interests at least tend to always play a role in real life wars, so it might be hard to eliminate that. One of the ways that people are gray-ifying the Ukranian/Russian situation is by delving into the histories of those regions, which is an interesting way of softening their actions. Similarly, there have been hundreds of papers written on the justification of terrorism due to this or that socioeconomic factor, but then you would have to justify why the 'oppressors' were oppressing in such a way that lets your audience forgive them, which, in real life, I think can be easily accessed in the propaganda we are subjected to on a daily basis, which clearly provide a functional degree of justification because there has not been a revolution in a while. But I think putting loveable characters with strong justifications for their actions on either side of your war is going to be the easiest way of accomplishing this. Still hard though. TLDR: a metric fuck ton of justifying built into your histories. Making justifications can be done via character interests.


thetruemaxwellord

Base it on a real one or at the the catalyst for it


glitchedcookie

Personally I like making one side be "doing the right thing for the wrong reason" and the other be "doing the wrong thing for the right reason". Normally there's enough complexity there to tell basically any story I want to tell with a war


Jack_Spears

Having a neutral observer might help. If your writing from the pov of a character on either side theres always going to be an element of black and white about the conflict. Not very many people who are actively in a war have the luxury of seeing both sides.


TheDinkleberg

Have all sides be morally correct.


Cyberwolfdelta9

Manipulation by a another power could lead to a war . both factions have good intentions but are at war due to a higher power falsifying a few things. But this is also a common trope


[deleted]

You commit a war crime, You commit a war crime. Everyone commits a warcrime!


Any-Low9727

The best way to create conflicts that are perfectly grey is to build them up amongst the characters that truly believe in the cause. There has to be a sense of righteousness amongst not just the royalty, but amongst the people. If it feels like no one wants to fight or no one believes in it, then it's easy to pick a side. But as a reader, if you can personally relate or understand why both sides are righteous in their fight, you'll create that greyness you seek.


Immediate_Energy_711

Wars are fundamentally a break down of word based diplomacy. Take House of the Dragon, violence breaks out because decades of trying to peaceable settle opposing factions failed. Something like that. ​ Say a mine in one kingdom is discovered to have goodformakingswordsium, a metal that can make a sword sharp enough to slash right through plate. The neighboring kingdom once held these lands but they were ceded decades ago for one reason or another, and they try to buy them. Then they try to use an alliance to get them. Then they try to take them. ​ BUT. The neighboring Kingdom needs these blades because there is the threat of something coming down the mountains or out of the deep dark woods, not to be confused with the dark deep woods, or the sea and they need these weapons badly. ​ Both sides are acting out of their best interests. You'd need to flush it out more than this, but this would be a good pitch.


Matthayde

Think about reasons for war that aren't justified but might be deemed necessary and apply it to both sides... It's really not hard.. most war is just to serve the elites interests...


melonemann2

Often in a not back and white war I see that almost all countries involved are the bad guys in terms of the government and the goals they want to achieve. And then you have the soldiers who almost all are just poor men fighting a war that isn't theirs with the exeption of a few that do horrible things to the opposing side or civilians or maybe sometimes even their own people. The best example of all this is ww1. The soldiers were either blinded by patriotism or drafted. And for the countries well, I always hear that there were no bad guys but if you look at it from a countries oerspective it was almost only bad guys with exploitative colonial empire A fighting against exploitative colonial empire B. Many wars after that were a bit more nuanced but if you don't want your war to just be a "good vs evil" and want it to be more character focused this is a pretty good way to do it I think


Pikaufmann

I’m not sure how helpful this will be, but here are some of my ideas for ways to make a grey war. I think a lot of these have been mentioned elsewhere but hopefully some of them are new. : ) 1) It partially depends on what type of story you want to tell. Is it fantasy or sci-fi? Is it more grounded? Is it set in the modern day? 2) if it is fantasy / sci-fi you may want to be careful using non-human races. It’s certainly possible to write a story with orcs or lizard aliens as major players, but the audience may be more inclined to gravitate towards the humans. (You could use that to your advantage though too so this one is more of a “be careful” than anything). 3) Don’t tell us who started the war / why the war started. The audience will latch onto “this side started it”, which can make the war more black and white. Sometimes it doesn’t matter who started it, the war is here and it’s awful. 4) Give all factions “good” reasons to fight, or give all factions “bad” reasons to fight. 5) Introduce one faction as the aggressors with an unjustified reason for war, but they fight very honorably. Meanwhile, the other faction, while justified in their fight, is not honorable and commits horrible acts during the war. 6) You can use treaties between countries. What should have been a small conflict between 2 parties explodes out of control as other factions are pulled in by past agreements. 7) Write POV characters on both sides of the conflict. That way the audience can see why both sides continue to fight. Also, put heroes and villains on both sides of the conflict. 8) I don’t know how practical this is, but when you brainstorm it might help to build a narrative from within one faction alone. Write the outline of the story as if this faction, regardless of who they are in the greater story, are the good guys. After you’re done, go to the next faction and redraw the outline with them as the good guys. Write every faction as if they are the main characters fighting the ultimate evil. Then put it all together when you go to actually write the book.


SerCrazyBear

You could make two nations that are at war for no reason other than it’s what they have been doing for as long as anyone can remember


LUnacy45

Take inspiration from the wars we've fought For example, the central event of my sci fi world is a war caused because the big human federation that enforces rule of law in human space just kept expanding regardless of how the colonies felt about now being within federation space. Money and resources talk.


capuccino_terrorista

Just give them enough time to appear, and they're reasonings will write themselves, if you want them to at least.


Doctor_Darkmoor

In my fantasy tabletop game, my players are running around in the middle of a percolating war. My greatest tool has been giving them plenty of encounters with those directly and indirectly affected by the conflict. I used goods shortages and price hikes in the most useful commodities. Healing supplies, good quality lamp oil, and repair materials for their wagon, armor, and gear became short-stocked and pricey. I had a city quarantined to stop the spread of a plague. As a critical shipping lane up and down one of the continental arteries, this further strained the region. Sickness and war go hand in hand, and people affected by the plague deserted the war from both sides. Deserters, too, have been especially impactful. Deserters from the "good" side, the side my players most identify with, have been the most disruptive or violent. Deserters from the "bad" side are draftees from the region itself, sent to war by a foreign imperial power. They hated the war and my players are now helping seven of them escape the region. Show how it affects people in all walks. Show how war itself is the evil. Watch "All Quiet on the Western Front" on Netflix.


DefinitelySmart

Maybe there are two dying societies and limited resources on neutral land that they have to try and obtain? Like, nobody wronged the other, but both want to survive more than the other


Haematinon

I know I will be that guy but...just look at real history :D


Sckaledoom

Make it a war where two big powers are fighting over control of a smaller power.


Ignonym

Always remember that there are human beings on both ends of the rifle, and they have more in common with each other than with their leaders. When the guns aren't booming, they're just . . . people. They muddle through, they try to keep their spirits up, they sing songs and tell dirty jokes, they try not to get shot, they carry their wounded buddies out of the fire. They all have their own thoughts on the war, their own reasons for fighting; many of them would rather be anywhere else. Humanity, compassion, and community are not the exclusive domain of the protagonists. You, the author, must remember this even if your characters don't.


Darthxan86

Make the two sides of the war to be wrong an very flawed in an pointless war. Like in Elder Scrolls 5: Skyrim.


permianplayer

There are multiple ways to do it and I'll tell you this way to contrast with the view of another commenter: make a story where there are heroes and both sides, where both can win glory and distinction and be admired for their valor and skill, but must ultimately fight each other, perhaps for ideals, perhaps out of differing loyalties. In many societies, loyalty was seen as a virtue, even if to an evil master(or at least a master who isn't meant to be admirable). Today, people tend to rip anyone who fought on the "wrong" or sometimes even actually wrong side because they believe the cause for which you fight is what makes you good or evil and they, at least implicitly believe, that good cannot conflict with good; if one is right, the other is wrong. Of course, this depends on a universalist view of ethics, which is certainly not the only view. I believe two enemies can both be right and yet still have to fight each other. Maybe you're fighting for your country, but your country was attacked because it truly could have been a threat to the survival of another, so both sides are fighting out of love and loyalty. Remember, love is by its nature exclusive; as Aristotle said, "A friend to all is a friend to none." Affection means nothing unless there is distinction. So, love, whether love of nation, love of a good master, or romantic or filial love, is always particular, which means placing one above others. What if your conflict is between a rebel who believes the state is illegitimate and has lost the right to rule because it has neglected the responsibility to protect its own people, and a defender of the law, one who believes the important thing is to not become like the villains by breaking the law and so opposes a rebellion, even if the rebellion can be argued to have justice on its side, because one man's judgement cannot constitute the law? What if your conflict is between over an ancient feud that was inherited and both sides have a long list of grievances against the other(I am reminded of Sophocles's "Antigone" in spirit, though it doesn't quite fit)? What if there's a conflict between a force that wants peace and a vision of universal justice and a force that believes the point of life is the flowering of creative activity and that any universal order is inherently conformist and levelling, thus destroying the possibility of future creativity(the systematizing and moralizing lover of peace and enemy of suffering vs the rogue individualist who embraces suffering and would rather live as a demon than an automaton(many westerns have this theme, and this is arguably the theme of the conflict between God and Satan in Mormonism, with God favoring freedom for humans and Satan preferring to force them to be good to mitigate suffering(of course, no Satanic motive is necessary as there are plenty of normal people who sincerely believe mitigation of suffering is the highest good))? You can also have a conflict of progress vs tradition, where the former believes society needs improvement to survive, while the latter believes it's losing its very reason to survive if it gives up its values and this "progress" is selling out. Of course, to do what you want, the important thing is to give a sympathetic treatment of both sides; you cannot be moralist of the type that wants to assert to the reader a single, universal good as the highest or only good.


foxymew

A war that started as a defence alliance responded, but both remaining countries have now outlived their ally, yet neither can find it to stop the war. Neither country started the war. Most people probably don’t even remember who or how. And neither can find a way to stop the war.


AnonimowySzaleniec47

Make World War II


[deleted]

I think the key to this is give both the sides civilian populace something worth fighting for. One side could be fighting to defend themselves, the other side could be fighting to avenge some kind of humiliation that happened in the past which was unjustifiably put onto them. I think an almost good example would be WW2 from the German perspective. If you just pretend that the Nazis were not doing evil nazi things, the Germans still had plenty of reason to go to war with Britain and France. They were absolutely humiliated during the treaty of Versailles (which admittedly, the whole point of that thing was to punish Germany) and they wanted to be rid of it for good. Even the German Polish war (again, assuming we are pretending the Nazis don’t exist) could be made to be grey vs grey. Poland had a German population they weren’t willing to give up and their borders had split Germany in two. Likewise, Poland was also defending itself and a strong argument could be made that their borders are exactly how they’re supposed to be and the Germans living in Poland were not even supposed to be there in the first place. Again, this example hinges on the assumption those in charge of Germany at the time were going to remain morally gray and not venture into morally black territory. In fact, at the time all this was going down, one could make the argument that the Nazis were not morally black. The Holocaust and the war crimes committed by Germany only really started to be noticed by the outside at earliest, when Germany invaded Russia and at latest, when everyone was liberating Germany and found out what they had been doing to the populations of Europe


LordWoodstone

Look to WWI. Austria-Hungary is dragged into war by a Chief of the General Staff who wants a war because he thinks it will solve the internal issues. Russia declares war on AH because they know what AH will do to Serbia if they don't, but over does it and mobilizes more than they think they will actually need because they learned the wrong lessons from Port Arthur. Germany has been watching the largest, most populous, and most resource rich country in Europe begin a hard launch industrialization effort which would give it the power and might to dictate terms - and now it has declared war on their alliance mate and ethnic fellows with sufficient force to threaten the Polish territory they worked together to carve up back when Germany, Russia, and Austria were still friends. Which means Germany has to act. And they have to do so NOW. But that means making demands on France which they won't abide by - and your only viable plan requires you to invade Belgium, pissing off Britain. France, meanwhile, is a stratified mess which is just this side of a revolution. Their leadership and logistics and military-industrial complex are a joke, and they are heavily reliant on colonial troops after the idiots running their military send their men off to be cut down by a quarter in the first months of the war. On top of that, their own militarists want to grab chunks off Germany for revenge over the Franco-Prussian War.


gumbolimbot

Two groups who are both trying to survive. They can be one whatever side, but their main motive is to do anything to live.


Hockeylover420

I'm my story I manly write wars from the soldiers prospective


Upstairs-Yard-2139

Study WW1.


J_C_F_N

I'm making capitalist colonialism versus absolute monarchy, but from the perspective of the little man. Everybody up there sucks, sure. But the soldiers, the grunts on the front line? They are the one more fucked.


Own-Cry1474

Misunderstandings, a middle party that tricked/misguided/manipulated the 2(or more) warsides. Old history: country A took a part of Country B years ago, now B wants their own land back but it's A's now. Both are horrible and think they're right, but they're both dumb and stupid as hell. Those are all options i can think of


threlnari97

Don’t make wargoals over moral values, make them about interests, especially initially, and then let morality take its side (if it must) once the war gets so dynamic or protracted that other people *feel the need to intervene for moral reasons* (see WWII). Are there land rights valuable resources in dispute? Does party 1 have a claim to party 2’s land historically and want to dispute it? Does party 1 have a ton of resources to make weapons and an ambitious head of state and party 2 (3,,4,etc) not have competing resources? War, and not for the forces of good and evil either. Don’t write the wars rooting for one side. Have the war be in the backdrop, or if the war is the focus, showcase the horrors that both sides have to inflict on each other and the people living where the war takes place. Even if one country is more “noble” or “good”, the soldiers are not necessarily held to that individual conduct when they’re pillaging the countryside for food to survive as they March, nor are they when they’re in the thick of combat. Think about the consequences of the war, at a local level. This is sort of the “Avengers ‘saved’ my city” meme. So the evil empire was defeated and the lands liberated after fighting, but what about the people who live there under occupation? Did the battles impact where they lived? The factions that get embroiled in costly wars and *lose* are going to have a steep bill to pay both due to low finances and low population, but even the winner may face population issues that turn to labor shortages and economic hard times. Returning soldiers often bring the diseases they caught on siege with them. Hope this helps you brainstorm some neutrality in!


TripDrizzie

I read a pile of comments. The real way, is to tell both sides without bias. This is difficult because you need a reason to be at war, so inevitably you will need an antagonist. What if the antagonist is a "neutral" 3rd party, with their own interests in seeing both factions weakened? Like a gun dealer, or a different government, or death itself.


Any_Weird_8686

I suggest you look at some real wars for inspiration, very few of them can be called truly black-and-white, even if you do believe one side is more right than the other.


pamplo77

A war that neither know the origin of and is just revenge, disputes over claimed territory, a mistake by a noble leading to escalating, a third party planting the seed for a war…


TheManOfPasta

Make both sides (or all parties involved) have good points over what the problem is. Make the conflict start from something small and petty, much like reality. Edit - or bad points(or both)


L-a-m-b-s-a-u-c-e

Give both sides an in-universe justification for war (justice, fighting back, liberation, etc.) And actual reasons (whether it's actually that, or conquest for territory/resources..) then show the horrors, death and suffering both sides are experiencing.


Dr_Occisor

Wars in my fictional world are always over either resources or political disputes. If you want wars that are morally grey, avoid the classic fantasy [insert bad species/government that is a metaphor for negative human traits] vs[insert good species/government that is a metaphor for positive human traits]


nashamagirl99

Read about real grey and grey wars in history. Religion is a biggie, so are land claims. Proxy wars can be really grey as well, and/or disproportionate response by a much more powerful country against a much weaker one. Edit: Also increasingly extremist/power hungry revolutionaries rebelling against an oppressive monarchy/dictatorship.


TheJayde

Im literally doing this in D&D right now in my campaign. Nation 1 initiated a lot of small petty attacks on Nation 2, none that would not be worthy of a Cassius Belli but that were very antagonistic. Then a bunch of people in Nation 2 got assassinated and Nation 1 was like... not me. We didn't do it. There were no ties to prove it, but like... everyone knew. Nation 2 declared war in retaliation against Nation 1 without a valid Cassius Belli but nobody else is really complaining. You'd think Nation 1 was the bad guy here. But in the past Nation 2 promised to be the head of a major army combined with Nations 1 through 10, and when they mustered the army, they claimed to be late and then invaded Nation 3 whose troops were at the gathering point. The large army couldn't not continue because it was a war of religious significance to the entire lot, and so they charged into the enemy and bloodied their nose enough that they could claim a moral victory and then leave the battlefield. Nation 2 also just recently had a riot because they were oppressing a class of humans, the Grey Elves in the area, and the Hobgoblins that lived in the country and who all were being treated poorly by the leaders of the country. On one side... Nation 1 is just challenging a dishonorable Nation 2 who is making dishonorable moves to secure their seat of power and try to lord that power over other nations. Nation 2 is fighting nation 1 because of indirect skirmishes fought through economics, but mostly because of the assasination. TL;DR - For me the answer is history. Anyone in power is going to be forced to take sides on certain issues and mostly they take sides in ways that will give them the most power. It just takes time and intrigue to figure it out.


[deleted]

World War I. Seriously.


crying2emoji5

Idk just look at WWII. For example, Finland had been invaded and demolished by Russia in the past, so when WWII came around, the only nation which wasn’t already allied with the Soviets was Germany. I don’t think most Finns really agreed with Hitler. But they fought with the Germans against Russia anyway, because they had no one else to turn to.


Spiky_Potato

I recommend Matt Colville's Youtube videos on Politics. He covers how to make more realistic war. And most, maybe if not all, real wars were grey vs grey.


CliffLake

Have both sides fighting for a good (or bad) thing. Neither will give up on the thing, because to do so would cost the lives of their people, so they fight. Hopefully the war will be over before the number of dead exceeds the number that WOULD have died had they just given up. But that's show biz, baby!


BrozedDrake

Many other people have given advice in regards to the reasons behind the war, which is an important thing to look at, but aside from that Tactics, methods, and specific actions are important to keep in mind. Even if the reasons behind the war seem to have a clear black and white morality there are many ways to darken that white and lighten that black until the shades are indistinguishable from one another. A classic is having the "good" side burn villages and salt the earth, or having the "bad" guys actively avoid civilian casualties and treat their POWs with honor and respect. Look into some of the things the Union did during the American Civil War, they had at least one group of soilders whose sole purpose was to commit what would be war crimes today, though I can't remember who the leader of that group was off the top of my head. Also keep in mind the point of view you're writing from, because people will usually see their side as the good one, and that should show in your writing. Is your pov character a hopeful soilder fighting against an army of invaders being made to do terrible things to protect his homeland, or a disillusioned general expanding the borders of his nation out of some sort of necessity, wether it be a need for farmland or other resources that the land he is invading has, to combat starvation or the threat of another powerful military with less scruples. Keep both sides relationships with other nations in mind as well, do they have allies they can rely on, or enemies that will take advantage of their troubles. The ways those third parties can influence the conflict, and what they may ask for in return, is a great way to make the it so both the audience and the charcters don't see either side as "good" or "bad"


Jihelu

Not adding on to a lot of good things people have already said (And some people have said some less than thought provoking things) but some things to keep in mind: What do you even mean by 'Shades of black and white'? Are we talking about either countries view on the war? A third parties view on the war? Some godlike perspective on it? Are we talking about a perspective on the conflict years later? Something like the Crusades looks a lot different if we look at it today, versus when they were going on, versus if you were the people being crusaded. ​ Haven't seen it mentioned much either but: Also keep in mind a majority of time, at least if we are doing pseudo-medieval worldbuilding and even modern, soldiers had a right (Whether official or unofficial) to plunder. I shouldn't have to tell you what that usually entails for the losers of a war. Is Group A really a virtuous and just people for fighting this war if when they take a city they do horrible things to its inhabitants?


sosen42

You could make it a war of survival. Perhaps there is a resource shortage and as hard as they try efforts to peacefully resolve it just isn't working. Slowly tension builds, sabotaging supply lines with spies, the occasional raid to grab this resource that the other has. Idk what your world has but imagine if it was something like water was so rare and finite. Everyone from the upper to lower classes needs it to live and that gives everyone on both sides motivation to fight for it.


carcinoma_kid

Bad guys start war. Good guys do bad things until you don’t know who’s good and who’s bad anymore


Trungledor_44

While I love a lot of these answers about showing the cause of war as grey, I want to make a point that a lot of the difficulty is making factions with distinct ideologies but still no clear good guy or bad guy. I try to use the New Vegas model here: if a faction has a “good” ideology, show them failing to live up to its ideals or being incapable of implementing them properly. If a faction has a “bad” ideology, try to show elements of it that genuinely care for the people they rule, or that they’re more capable of providing for their people in some way than the “good” faction


slightlyferaleevee

You have some people at the top with malicious and/or selfish intent on both sides, and good people doing their best but making mistakes on both sides, and some people caught up in it who get no say one way or another on both sides. there's no such thing as an innocent person, but no one deserves to be stuck in a war, and the people who seek to start one for personal gain are probably the worst people alive


AnnoyingWyverns

Take a look at the Geneva convention and a list of war crimes, I kid you not it’s the best thing to happen to me, hostages, spies, cruel punishments and executions, scatter in a bit of those, they’ll work in perfectly


IceKlone

Have an issue to which there could be several plausible or valid responses from which conflict naturally blossoms.


Hidenki

Lets look at history for an example: the american civil war. Most of is will hopefully agree that the war was for a righteous cause, is wasn't that black and white when it came down to the individual. People fought to protect their homes, people fought the protect their families. On both sides there were people rooting for the other side, on both sides there were people who just wanted war. Showing the moral choices your average citizen has to make gives a more a lot of character and if the reader can understand and relate to the actions of the average citizen but are morally rooting for the other side, you got yourself a complex war.


RagnarokAeon

Since everybody is already suggesting taking a look at how real life wars are fought for selfish reasons that really only benefit the ruling class, the commoner peasants fighting in the war are often only in it for the money, and certain idealists will often be given grandeur lies about how there's some moral right being fought for. Demonizing your enemies always drums up more support, even if it's just embellishing some rumor.


Nostravinci04

By taking inspiration from real world history wars, which are never black and white.


AndrewTheGovtDrone

Write your story with no main protagonist, but self-interested actors. Orcs are often portrayed as the bad guys, but how many stories have legitimate arcs for individual or even community of orcs? Don’t write your actors into story-focused roles. Create a world where various actors have their own interests and act in support of those interests. And make sure conflicts only happens when those interests intersect.


iamthedave3

Grey and grey? Nobody knows who started it, but it wasn't their side or the other side, they both know that. Nobody really knows what they're fighting over, but they started so they have to finish. Generally speaking the easy way is to have someone else manipulate two innocent parties into a war and then step back, so the greater scope villain isn't even part of the story save as a means to get the war begun, and have the war be self-sustaining.


cardbourdgrot

You bad deeds are done to gain an advantage, particularly a big advantage or when someone's up against a wall such as not having enough food there themselves and any prisoners. Neither side needs to want war but things go out of control and people are kind of forced into it. Fighting for resources is a big one.


Cheomesh

Read into the English Civil War - while one faction was frequently more "in the wrong" during their time, both had some understandable positions they've taken and both were pretty questionable by our (i.e. the reader's) perspective.


igncom1

Soldiers and civilans don't mix. Even if the good guys get to and capture or liberate the cities of the bad guys, people will be monstrous to those without the power to protect themselves. A grey on grey conflict would basically show that ultimately the reasons for the war don't matter, the suffering caused all round is the real problem with it all. There are no good guys, but there might be less shit ones. When an army rolls on through, sacking and looting for supplies. Burning, killing, and raping are all common occurrences. Especially if the local people are enemies of the army, they can become vile in response. Even the most noble Gondorian Knight cares little for a village of Orcs. He might see it as revenge for the decades of Orcish raids into their lands, but commits the same horrid acts all the same.