Choices, Choices, Choices...

            In any situation, there are choices to make. Sometimes it’s clear which is the best to make, while other times there is no clear “right” answer. We often grow up believing that there is a nice, easy Right and Wrong, but then we discover that life isn’t so simple. Most decisions have potential good and bad side-effects, regardless of the intended decision.

            This piece of knowledge is of the utmost importance to writers – as well as any other purveyors of story-based entertainment. Our instincts when giving choices to characters is to provide them with a clear-cut decision. This is because we want the readers to be on the character’s side. When the character makes a good decision, it makes them more heroic and likable. A bad decision is also useful, because the readers can then bemoan the choice and have an “I told you so” moment when it blows up in the character’s face. It’s also easy, and caters to that side of us that still believes in a simplistic Right and Wrong.

            However, if we indulge that instinct, we lose a lot of reality from our stories. They end up feeling a lot like fairytales and it’s more difficult to sneak in plot twists. Besides, how hard is it for a character to make a decision when the outcome is fairly obvious? Our heroes need to face challenges, otherwise there’s no point in having a story, and every challenge comes with choices to make. So we enter the grey area...

            The grey area is challenging to create within a story world. The reason for this isn’t simply because it’s more complicated, but because we, as the creator, know what direction we want the story to go after the choice is made. This gives as a bit of tunnel vision as to the possibilities surrounding any given decision – because we already know what the results are going to be. To combat this, we need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture and see if we can drop in more consequences to any given choice.

            Let’s use an example. Say that the hero must make a decision whether or not to go on a mission that will help fend off an invading army. For a heroic character, that’s already a simple decision. So, how do we make it more complicated? The easiest way is to add a compelling reason to not fend off the invading army, such as a love interest that needs rescuing. Suddenly, the decision got way more complicated. It went from saving the nation or not to saving a nation or saving a loved one. Each option has a clear positive side, as well as a clear negative side.

            However, we still know how that story is going to turn out. As long as this isn’t a tragedy, the hero is going to save the love interest, then deal with the fallout from the invading army. It’s grey, but still not quite grey enough. So, we add more depth to the choice. A close comrade of family member is fighting in the war and may die based on this decision. The love interest is ill and can’t possibly wait until the war is dealt with. The hero’s presence at the battlefront will strike fear into the hearts of the enemy, but the word of their deeds will spread to those holding the love interest and they will respond in some way. Rescuing the love interest will mean all the hero’s dreams will come true, except they will have lost everything they ever fought for.

            To increase how grey that grey area is, we can add in other choices as well; going to the front and sending someone else to rescue the love interest, but can the person be trusted? Betraying the homeland and joining the enemy to end the war quickly so the love interest can be rescued. The more branches there are, the more compelling the decision will become. And the key is that no decision can be all good, because even the best decisions have negative consequences, even if they aren’t visible at first. Of course, the reader doesn’t need to know all the consequences – those can reveal themselves over time. In fact, some uncertainty in the results of a decision can make it all the more compelling.

            So often, we think of choices as a two way switch. This or that. But to make a choice truly compelling, we need to change that thought process. We need to think of each decision as a web that keeps branching out into more and more consequences (both good and bad) the further we get from the point where the decision was made.

Check out my YouTube channel where I tell the stories of my D&D campaigns.

Click here to find the charity anthology containing a couple of my short stories.

Also, make sure you check out my wife's blog and her website.


If there's any subject you'd like to see me ramble on about, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.

What Change?

            I’ve been reading a series of books called the Death Gate Cycle to Colleen. This is fantasy series (by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman) from the late 80’s and early 90’s that I read once before when I was much younger. It’s one of those series that really proves what I always say about fantasy being the perfect way to take a closer look at human nature.

            This series takes place in a universe where the world has been split into four separate elemental worlds – plus a couple extras, but the details aren’t important for this blog. This happened because of two races of people so magical that they and the “lesser” races believed them to be gods – but the ideals of these two peoples opposed each other, so they were at war.

            The orderly and “goodly” of these two races, afraid of losing the way, cast a spell that tore the world to pieces and reformed it, dumping the chaotic and “evil” race into a magical prison while they were at it. Many of the “lesser” races died in the process, but the “goodly” race saved as many as they could. Unfortunately, the elemental worlds were not self-sustaining, and before the “goodly” race could link them together to work as a team (as they had intended), something went wrong and they began to vanish.

            The story follows a member of the “evil” race, who is one of many to have escaped the magical prison after generations of torment. Under the command of his lord, the first of his people to escape, he is scouting out the worlds in preparation for launching a war against the “goodly” race.

            As he is exploring these worlds, he finds them in chaos – with the three “lesser” races fighting endless wars against each other while the “goodly” race is absent. Then, on the fourth world he visits, he discovers dragon-like monsters who profess to serve him, but he eventually determines that they are pure evil and that they gain power from fear and hatred.

            These creatures get released into the other worlds, where they insinuate their way into the ranks of the “lesser” races (they are shape-changers) and spread chaos, fear, and hatred. They always present themselves as wanting to serve, and whenever confronted by someone who knows what they are, they say “You made us.”

            Then, at last, someone learns how to fight them by pinning down what they actually are. They explain it simply as “they are us.” The monsters are the embodiment of all the hatred and fear the races have of each other, and the more hatred and fear there is, the more powerful these monsters became.

            As I was reading this, I thought, wow... that looks a lot like the issues we’re facing in the world today.

            And, as with today, the way to fight these monsters was for people to put aside their hatred and fear and work together.

            To me, it is an obvious message. But then, this is woven into a series of books that was written over twenty years ago and we’re still dealing with the same issues. Perhaps the time has come to say it louder.

Click here to find the charity anthology containing a couple of my short stories.

Also, make sure you check out my wife's blog and her website.


If there's any subject you'd like to see me ramble on about, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.

What Makes Morality?

            I got myself to thinking about morality and how right and wrong can be determined. For most of my younger life, I had a very clear idea of what was right and wrong. Even when I reached the age where black-and-white thinking shifted to contain a lot of grey area, I still easily determined right from wrong.

            As someone on the hyper-rational end of the spectrum, I always figured that morality was something determined by logic. After all, if we are to believe there is some underlying, universal truth about what is right or wrong, then we must be able to follow the logical path to discover why it is right or wrong.

            How, then, is it possible for different people to have such varying rule as to what is good and bad? Some comes from external guidance – with religions or trusted people dictating right and wrong – but even without those, most people have an inherent sense of morality. Put someone in a situation or give them a scenario and, without even thinking, they can tell you what they think of it based on their moral compass.

            Which means that a person’s morality is dictated not by logic, but by emotion. Now, it is obviously tempered by their upbringing and life experiences, but the root of all morality lies in emotion.

            This actually makes a lot of sense, because logic doesn’t know morals. Logic can be used to prove a great many things – I have the ability to logically prove that there is nothing wrong with using humans as lab rats, but that doesn’t mean that it is right. That’s something that most people’s morals will immediately tell them is wrong. That decision is also logical, however that logic is built on a foundation of how we feel when confronted with that scenario.

            So I must determine that there are as many different moralities in the world as there are people. What does this mean for the underlying universal morality? Does it exist, and we have yet to find it, or are we simply deluding ourselves into thinking there is such a thing as right and wrong?

Click here to find the charity anthology containing a couple of my short stories.

Also, make sure you check out my wife's blog and her website.


If there's any subject you'd like to see me ramble on about, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.

What is Evil? Really?

            The other day, Colleen asked me how I define evil. My reply was that I don’t, because evil implies someone who does harm through malicious intent. I feel that most people who cause harm do so unintentionally – or, at the very least, think they have the best intentions.

            It did get me thinking, though. If I really had to define evil, how would I do it? What causes people to cause harm?

            Greed was what I came up with first. Greed for wealth or greed for power or greed for anything, really. That’s where evil, if it truly exists, is most visible. It causes people to stockpile money, harming the economy by making less money available to go around. It causes politicians to lie so they can get elected. It starts wars over land or resources. Almost all evil can be linked back to greed.

            Yet, even most of those people don’t view themselves as evil. They feel they’re doing what they must, or perhaps what everyone else is doing.

            That got my mind on the track of how people can cause so much harm and either be unaware or think it’s okay. It brought me to the essence of what motivates people: what they believe. Someone who lives on the streets and must steal to survive might view those who do not help them as evil, and would they be wrong? Is it not more evil to allow someone to starve to death than to help them survive? At the same time, the people being stolen from would view the thief as evil, and would they be wrong? After all, stealing to feed oneself without concern for those being harmed is more evil than choosing to starve to death.

            Both sides have merit, yet neither will budge from their positions. Their views and beliefs are set in stone. They each know with certainty that they are good, and the other is evil.

            So it was that I arrived at the best definition of evil I could come up with.

            All it takes to be evil is to believe you are right and that there is no possibility you are wrong.

Click here to find the charity anthology containing a couple of my short stories.

If there's any subject you'd like to see me ramble on about, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.

The Grey Area

            Recently, my wife and I have started re-watching the show Boston Legal, which is an excellent comedy that deals with many issues that are still prominent today. However, the one thing I like the most about this show is how it makes us look at the grey area. Not that mushy grey area that rests between our ears, but the grey area of morality resting between right and wrong; good and evil.

            We, as humans, are often very quick to judge most things, grouping them into “right” and “wrong”. The problem is that, when it comes right down to it, there isn't a strict dividing line between the two. In fact, there’s a very big mass of grey right in the middle.

            For example, in one episode of Boston Legal, an elderly woman with no relatives had fallen under the legal guardianship of a man who put her in a home and was living off of her assets. When the main character (a lawyer) tried to solve the problem legally, the man was able to stall – and then put the old woman’s house up for sale.

            The main character – a man with a strong sense of justice but is not above unscrupulous methods – hired some thugs to break into the man’s house (stolen from a different senior) and leave him tied up in a chair so he’d know what it was like to feel as helpless as the old woman did. Then, after about an hour, the main character came in and forced the man to sign papers to release the lady from his control, returning her assets to her.

            As an audience, we can’t very well condemn the main character for his actions. He, himself, regrets them, but good won out in the end. The man was clearly in the wrong, victimizing seniors. He was a terrible person. Yet, at the same time, what the main character did was wrong as well. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but everything turned out for the best.

            The more we look at what’s right and wrong, the more we can see falling into the grey area. We tell ourselves that there are universal laws of good and evil, but there are other cultures out there with their own universal laws of what’s right and wrong. Everything shifts a bit, from place to place, religion to religion, even from person to person. Who are we to declare that our set of universal laws are the ones that are true?

            When I think about what rules must be universally accepted, the first thing that comes to mind is killing another person. I simply cannot fathom how anyone could say that, morally, killing a person isn't wrong. Yet, there are people who don’t see a problem with it. There are countries with capital punishment, cultures that reward killing people and so many people fighting wars and killing each other. Clearly, it is not a universal truth that killing a person is bad.

            For everything that is truly bad, a justification can always be found somewhere. Likewise, for everything that is truly good, a reason can always be found to explain why it was bad. Examining things closely enough, everything blurs. Eventually, everything becomes grey. Does evil really exist? Does good?

            Perhaps there really is a universal law of right and wrong out there. I could be that it’s ours. Or, maybe, we simply haven’t found it yet.

            We’re too lost in the grey area – the mushy one that rests between our ears.

Click here to find the charity anthology containing a couple of my short stories.

If there's any subject you'd like to see me ramble on about, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.