Too much conflict in fiction is black and white. The protagonist is right, the antagonist is wrong. Character A has the moral high ground, Character B is being unreasonable. One person is clearly the good guy, the other is clearly the problem. This might work for some stories, but it makes for flat, predictable conflict that doesn't reflect how disagreements actually work in real life.
Real conflicts are messy. Both people usually have legitimate points. Both believe they're right. Both are acting from their values, fears, and histories in ways that make sense to them. The tension comes not from one person being obviously wrong, but from two people who care about each other (or at least are both reasonable people) being unable to agree despite both having valid perspectives.
These kinds of conflicts are harder to write but infinitely more engaging. Readers don't pick a side and root against the other person. They see both perspectives, feel torn about who's right, and understand why this disagreement matters and hurts. These conflicts feel real, which makes them compelling.
This guide will teach you how to create nuanced conflict where both characters have good points. You'll learn to develop valid reasoning on both sides, show why compromise isn't easy, escalate disagreements naturally, and resolve (or not resolve) conflicts in ways that feel authentic to the characters and their relationship.
Understanding Why Both-Sides-Valid Conflict Works
When both characters in a conflict have legitimate perspectives, several things happen that make the story richer and more engaging.
First, readers can't just pick the obviously right side and tune out. They have to engage with the complexity. They might lean toward one character's position but understand the other's point too. This creates internal reader tension that mirrors the characters' conflict, making readers more invested.
Second, these conflicts reveal character. When there's no clear right answer, we learn about characters through what they prioritize, what they fear, what they value. A character's position in a nuanced conflict tells us who they are in ways that "character fights obvious bad guy" never can.
Third, resolution becomes meaningful. If one character was obviously right all along, resolution is just the wrong character finally seeing sense. But when both have valid points, resolution requires compromise, growth, understanding, or accepting that some conflicts don't have perfect solutions. That's dramatically and emotionally satisfying.
Fourth, relationships feel real. Real people who care about each other disagree strongly sometimes. Showing that your characters can have serious conflict while both being reasonable, caring people makes their relationship feel authentic. Conflict doesn't have to mean one person is toxic or wrong. It can mean two good people see things differently.
Finally, this kind of conflict serves theme. Stories exploring complex moral questions, competing values, or difficult choices need conflicts that reflect that complexity. Characters arguing different sides of a genuinely difficult question is how you explore theme without being didactic.
Identifying What They're Really Fighting About
Surface conflict and actual conflict are often different. Characters might argue about one thing, but the real disagreement is deeper. Before you write the conflict, identify both levels.
Surface conflict is what they're explicitly disagreeing about. Whether to move to a new city. Whether to tell someone the truth. Which plan to follow. How to handle a situation. This is what they say they're arguing about, and it's real, but it's usually not the whole story.
Deeper conflict is the values clash or emotional truth underneath. The move isn't really about the city; it's about one person's need for stability versus the other's need for growth. The truth-telling disagreement is actually about whether protecting someone or respecting their autonomy matters more. The plan argument is really about who gets to make decisions or whose judgment is trusted.
Identify what values are in conflict. Security versus adventure. Justice versus mercy. Individual freedom versus collective responsibility. Honesty versus kindness. Ambition versus relationships. When you know what fundamental values or priorities are clashing, you can develop both sides as valid expressions of those values.
Consider what each character fears will happen if they don't get their way. Not just practical consequences but emotional ones. One character fears being trapped or controlled. The other fears chaos or irresponsibility. One fears being abandoned. The other fears losing themselves. These fears make their positions feel urgent and necessary rather than just stubborn.
The best conflicts operate on both levels. The characters are genuinely disagreeing about the practical decision, and that disagreement reveals and triggers deeper emotional and values-based conflicts. Address both the surface issue and the underlying clash.
Developing Valid Reasoning For Both Sides
The key to both-sides-valid conflict is giving each character genuinely good reasons for their position. Not just stubbornness or selfishness, but logic, values, and experience that make their perspective legitimate.
Start with Character A. Why do they believe what they believe? Not "because they're right" but what reasoning, experience, evidence, or values lead them to this position? Maybe they've seen this situation before and know how it turns out. Maybe their cultural background or personal history makes this value paramount. Maybe they have information the other person doesn't have. Maybe they're prioritizing a legitimate concern.
Give them emotional truth. Beyond logic, what emotional need or wound makes this position important to them? Someone who grew up in chaos might desperately need structure and be unable to see why anyone would choose uncertainty. Someone who was controlled might be unable to tolerate anything that feels like someone else making their decisions. The emotional truth makes their position feel necessary, not just preferred.
Now do the same for Character B. Equal time, equal validity. What's their reasoning? What's their emotional truth? Why is their position just as legitimate as A's? If you find yourself thinking "well B is kind of wrong," dig deeper. Find the genuine value, fear, or logic that makes B's position reasonable from their perspective.
Make sure both characters can articulate their position in ways that would convince a reasonable person. Not "I just feel like..." or "Because I said so" but actual arguments. "If we do it your way, here's what could go wrong, and I can't risk that because..." or "I understand your concern, but my experience has shown that this approach works better because..."
Both sides should have potential downsides to the other's approach. A isn't just being cautious for no reason; B's plan genuinely has risks that worry A. B isn't being reckless; A's approach genuinely has costs that B finds unacceptable. When both characters have legitimate concerns about the other's solution, there's real tension.
Making The Conflict About Incompatible Truths
The most compelling version of this conflict type is when both characters are right, but their truths are incompatible. You can't have both. That's what makes the conflict genuinely difficult.
Example: One character believes in absolute honesty. They've built their life on transparency and think lies, even kind ones, corrode relationships. This is a valid value. Another character believes in protecting people from hurtful truths that serve no purpose. They've learned that sometimes kindness means not saying everything you think. This is also valid. Both are right about their value. The conflict is that you can't tell the harsh truth and also protect someone's feelings. The truths are incompatible.
Example: One character wants to pursue a risky opportunity that could change their life. Another character worries the risk could destroy what they've built. The opportunity might genuinely be life-changing. The risk might genuinely be destructive. Both assessments are correct. You can't take the risk and avoid the risk. Incompatible truths.
Example: One character needs space to process emotions. Another character needs connection when there's conflict. Both needs are valid. Both are acting from legitimate emotional patterns. But you can't give someone space and stay connected at the same time. Incompatible needs.
These conflicts don't have easy answers because both sides are legitimately right about something. Resolution isn't about proving one person correct. It's about finding a way to honor both truths when both can't be fully satisfied, or accepting that sometimes relationships contain incompatibility that has to be navigated rather than solved.
When building your conflict, ask: Is there a way both characters could get what they want? If yes, the conflict is probably too easy. If no, because their wants or truths genuinely conflict, you've got real tension.
Showing How Personal History Shapes Position
What makes characters' positions feel valid and understandable is showing how their backgrounds, experiences, and wounds lead them to their perspectives. People aren't randomly stubborn. Their positions make sense given who they are and what they've lived through.
A character who grew up in poverty might prioritize financial security above all else. Taking risks with money feels existentially dangerous to them, not just unwise. Their position about the risky investment isn't stubbornness; it's survival instinct based on real experience.
A character who was lied to by someone they trusted might be unable to tolerate even small dishonesty. Their insistence on complete transparency isn't being inflexible; it's protecting themselves from repeating a painful betrayal.
A character who was abandoned might be unable to give space in conflict because space feels like abandonment. They're not being clingy; they're terrified. A character who was smothered or controlled might desperately need space because closeness feels like losing autonomy. They're not being distant; they're protecting their boundaries.
Show these connections through internal monologue, dialogue, or flashback. When we understand why a position feels so urgent to a character, we can't dismiss their perspective as wrong even if we might make a different choice. We understand the emotional logic.
Be careful not to make one character's history more sympathetic than the other's. If Character A has trauma that explains their position but Character B is just being difficult, you've created a villain-hero dynamic. Both characters' histories should make their positions equally understandable.
Escalating The Conflict Naturally
Realistic conflict doesn't go from zero to screaming match. It escalates through stages as attempts at resolution fail and emotions intensify. This escalation should feel organic to the characters and situation.
Start with the disagreement appearing. Often begins calmly, rationally. Both characters state their positions. They're trying to convince each other through logic. Neither sees the other as unreasonable yet. This is the "we can solve this" stage.
Move to frustration as neither convinces the other. Explanations get more insistent. Voices might raise slightly. The stakes become clearer. "This really matters to me" or "I need you to understand." Still relatively controlled but tension is building.
Escalate to emotional reactions. Logic hasn't worked, so emotions leak in. Past grievances might surface. "You always..." or "This is just like when..." The conflict stops being about this specific issue and starts pulling in relationship history or patterns.
Peak with the line-crossing moment. Someone says the thing that cuts. Maybe it's deliberately hurtful, maybe it just comes out, but it wounds. Or someone does something that feels like betrayal. This is the rupture point where the conflict damages the relationship, not just tests it.
Throughout escalation, show both characters struggling to stay reasonable. Neither wants to fight. Both keep trying to make the other understand. They're hurting each other but not (usually) intentionally. This maintains the both-sides-valid quality even as emotions run high.
The escalation should feel inevitable given who these characters are and what's at stake, not manufactured for drama. Each stage follows logically from the failure of the previous stage. That's how real conflicts spiral.
Writing The Argument Without Taking Sides
When writing conflict scenes, especially dialogue, the challenge is showing both perspectives fairly. If your prose or framing favors one character, you've broken the both-sides-valid balance.
Give both characters strong dialogue. Each should get to make their best points, not just reactive or defensive statements. Character A makes a compelling argument. Character B makes an equally compelling counterargument. Readers should think "oh, good point" to both characters multiple times.
Show internal monologue fairly if you're in POV. If you're in A's POV, yes, we get their perspective more deeply, but the prose shouldn't dismiss B's position. A can disagree with B while acknowledging B has legitimate points. "She wasn't wrong about the risk. I just couldn't accept the alternative."
Avoid framing one character as calm/rational and the other as emotional/irrational. Both can be emotional. Both can be rational. In fact, both will likely oscillate between rational and emotional during conflict. Don't code one character's emotions as weakness and the other's as justified.
Let both characters land blows. An effective argument has both people saying things that hurt or hitting on uncomfortable truths. One character isn't just defending while the other attacks. It's back and forth, with both scoring points.
Show both characters struggling with the conflict. Neither is comfortable. Both are in pain. Both wish it could be different. If one character seems fine and unbothered while the other is devastated, you've created imbalance. The conflict should cost both of them.
In third-person omniscient or multiple POV, show both perspectives directly. Let readers inside both characters' heads at different times so we understand both sides from the inside, not just as one character sees the other.
Finding Resolution Without Making One Side Wrong
Resolving both-sides-valid conflict is tricky because you can't just have one character realize they were wrong all along. That breaks the validity you built. Resolution needs to honor both perspectives while moving forward.
Compromise is one option: both characters give something. They find a middle path that doesn't give either person everything they wanted but honors both concerns. This works when the conflict is practical (what decision to make) rather than about core identity or values. The compromise should feel like genuine synthesis, not just splitting the difference.
Evolution is another path: both characters grow or their understanding deepens. They start to see why the other's position makes sense, not because they were wrong but because they understand more now. Maybe new information changes the equation. Maybe they see how their positions aren't as opposed as they thought. Evolution is both people changing, not one convincing the other.
Agree to disagree: they maintain different positions but accept this incompatibility. This is realistic for values-based conflicts. They can love each other while not agreeing on everything. The relationship survives the disagreement by both accepting they see this issue differently and that's okay. This requires maturity and respect on both sides.
One character changes position: but only if it's genuine growth, not caving. They see something new that genuinely shifts their perspective. Or they realize their position was more about fear than values, and they choose courage. The change has to be earned through character development, not just "I guess you were right."
External circumstances change the terms: something happens that makes the conflict moot or shifts what's possible. They were arguing about whether to move, then the job offer falls through. They were debating telling the truth, then the person finds out another way. This isn't really resolution of the values conflict but it can provide story closure.
The key is that resolution shouldn't make readers feel like the conflict was pointless or that one character was obviously right. Both perspectives should remain valid even as the situation moves forward.
What These Conflicts Reveal About Relationships
Conflict where both sides are valid does special work in developing relationships. It shows how characters handle disagreement, which is crucial relationship information.
These conflicts reveal what characters prioritize. When forced to choose between being right and maintaining the relationship, what do they do? When they can't have both their position and the other person's happiness, what wins? These choices show us who characters are more clearly than easy agreement ever could.
They show respect or lack thereof. Does each character really listen to the other's position, or are they just waiting to rebut? Do they acknowledge the other's legitimate points, or do they dismiss them? Can they express disagreement without contempt? How characters argue tells us whether they fundamentally respect each other.
They reveal communication patterns. Do they know how to fight fair? Do they bring up old grievances? Do they make it personal? Do they shut down or explode? These patterns reveal relationship health or dysfunction more than how much characters love each other.
They test whether the relationship can hold both truths. Strong relationships can contain disagreement and incompatibility. Weaker ones require agreement or someone always giving in. Showing characters successfully navigate both-sides-valid conflict demonstrates relationship resilience.
They create intimacy through vulnerability. Defending a position that matters deeply requires vulnerability. Admitting why this matters to you, what you're afraid of, why you need this... that's intimate. Conflict paradoxically deepens connection when both people are willing to be seen.
Using This Type Of Conflict To Explore Theme
Both-sides-valid conflict is perfect for exploring complex thematic questions. When your story asks difficult questions about values, morality, or human nature, these conflicts are how you examine all sides.
If your theme involves competing goods (freedom vs security, individual vs collective, honesty vs kindness), conflicts where characters embody different positions let you explore both sides legitimately. You're not telling readers which value is right. You're showing both values in action, with all their benefits and costs.
If your theme is about how good people can hurt each other, these conflicts demonstrate it. Both characters mean well. Both are acting from love or good intentions. And they're still hurting each other because their truths don't align. That's profound and painful and very human.
If your theme questions whether some conflicts have right answers, these conflicts embody that question. Readers finish your story without a clear answer to who was right, which might be the point. Some of life's conflicts don't have objectively correct solutions.
Use multiple conflicts to show theme complexity. Different character pairs wrestling with similar values questions from different angles gives you room to explore nuance. No single conflict has to carry all the thematic weight; the pattern across conflicts reveals your thematic investigation.
Be careful not to use conflict as a soap box. Even if you personally believe one character's position, your job is to fairly represent both sides. Readers should finish uncertain about what you believe, having considered both perspectives genuinely. That's how you create thought-provoking fiction rather than preaching.
Making Both-Sides-Valid Conflict Feel Natural
The ultimate goal is for these conflicts to feel like they emerge organically from who these characters are and what they want, not like you constructed them to be evenly balanced.
Root conflict in character. Don't start with "I want a conflict where both sides are right" and then build characters to fit. Start with specific characters with specific backgrounds, values, fears, and desires. Then identify where those characters would naturally clash. The conflict should feel inevitable given who they are.
Make the conflict matter to the story. It shouldn't exist just to show both sides of an issue. It should affect the plot, drive character arcs, or determine important decisions. The conflict needs narrative purpose beyond demonstrating nuance.
Vary your conflicts. If every conflict in your story is perfectly balanced both-sides-valid, that starts to feel artificial. Some conflicts can be more clear-cut. The both-sides-valid ones should be saved for the conflicts that really matter.
Trust your readers to handle complexity. You don't need to make both sides exactly equally sympathetic or give them equal page time or carefully balance every element. Just make both perspectives genuinely valid. Readers are smart enough to engage with complexity without perfect symmetry.
Write honest to the characters, not to balance. If following the characters authentically leads you to a conflict where one side is slightly more sympathetic, that's okay. The goal isn't mathematical equality but honest representation of incompatible truths. Let the characters be themselves.
When you get it right, readers will finish your conflict scenes feeling torn, understanding both characters, wishing they could both get what they need, and feeling the very real pain of incompatibility. That emotional complexity is the gift of both-sides-valid conflict. It makes your story feel as messy and rich as real human relationships actually are.