Necessary Compromises

            The latest event in preparation of the upcoming game Chronicles of Elyria (now that we’ve overcome the plague) is map voting. It’s an extraordinary opportunity for the future players of this game to vote on, and determine, what the map of the world (well, the starting continent) will look like. And each server will have its own unique map – making for a very different game depending on which server you play on. Of course, to me, the most interesting part is how the community reacted.

            I can’t speak for the whole community – only the small piece I interact with – but I suspect it’s a fairly accurate representation of what happened elsewhere as well. It all started with the releasing of the maps...

            I promptly looked through all the maps. Taking into consideration the needs of my kingdom, duchy, and county, I promptly narrowed what I felt would be the best maps for us down to 3 or 4. Within an hour, I had chosen a favorite, which matched one of the favorites of the count of my county.

            At the duchy level, we had a discussion on each of the maps. I was happy to see that the map I’d chosen was also popular at this level of our organization, and I believe it even made it into the top three.

            After a few days, there was a meeting of all the duchy leaders at kingdom level. Each of them had brought their favorite maps – and then they selected the map that they felt suited everyone’s needs, and announced it to the community at large – saying they were free to vote however they wished, but this was the map the leadership felt would be best for our kingdom’s needs.

            I was surprised, and disappointed, that the map was one that hadn’t even been seriously considered in my duchy. I wasn’t fond of it at all, and I wasn’t the only one. A fair number of people were expressing their disappointment in the choice, and demanded answers from the leadership.

            Our king then answered the questions, expressing that this map wasn’t the best pick for anyone, however it was the map that best suited the combined needs of all the groups in our kingdom. He went into further detail about the process that was used, and it was more than enough to make me (and others) accept this map. I promptly switched my train of thought to figuring out how to adapt to this new map, and I was satisfied that, while it was far from the best map, it was quite adequate.

            And, as usual, it got me thinking about the whole scenario, and applying it to the world at large. No matter what decision is made, at any level of an organization or a government, there are always people who speak up and are unhappy about it. It always seems the most remarkable when the leaders, who made the decision in the first place, are unhappy with it – why would they make the decision if they knew it wasn’t great?

            Often (not always!) it comes down to being a compromise. The more people you add to a group, the harder it becomes to make everyone happy about any one thing – and it’s outright impossible to make everyone happy about multiple things. So, in comes the compromise – the decision that nobody particularly likes, but is the best that can be done to make everyone happy.

            Yet, so many people insist on raging and being angry about these decisions. They will shout their anger to the world at large. Strangely, I don’t blame them – because the only thing that is usually presented is the decision, not the means of reaching it. Once a decision is made, it tends to be presented as the best option available, even if it clearly isn’t the case – the goal being to show confidence in the decision. I can’t help but wonder, would it work better if the leadership expressed that it was a compromise? It seems like people are more willing to accept a decision that’s a compromise if they know that’s what it is (provided they actually care about trying to make as many people happy as possible). At least, that’s how it worked out in the case of my little Elyrian microcosm.

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.

It's All The Same

            You would think that, given the opportunity, the majority of people would try to improve life – at least to the best of their ability. However, for some reason this doesn’t appear to be the case. There is an element to this related to the fact that those with the ability to bring about change don’t see the need for it, while those who want change the most lack the means. But, if this is the case, why do we see the same thing reflected in our fiction?

            With few (at least, comparatively few) exceptions, our fictional worlds tend to function remarkably similarly to ours. Oh, the names of everything changes, but there’s almost always some form of monetary system and a hierarchy of who is in charge – be it a democracy, meritocracy, theocracy, monarchy, or one of any number of other types, there is the familiar leadership structure.

            Now, there are reasons for doing this. Familiarity is important to help people be engaged with the content. If it isn’t an integral part of the story, having a consumer learn and figure out a whole new structure for a society is tedious and unnecessary. So, what people already know is what gets the most representation, which is fair – but I’ve noticed something else, as well: if people are given the option in a factional setting to make things different, they still choose to go with the familiar.

            The first example I have of this is the Dungeons & Dragons campaign I’m running. It’s set in a world I created with the specific intention of allowing the players to have a lot of control over how their society would develop. They were put in a situation where they were building up a civilization, where they were some of the most influential people around, and where there was no monetary system because everyone was struggling to survive. Did they try to influence their government into taking a new, potentially better structure? No. Did they try to create a new system of bartering? No – in fact, they specifically wanted the familiar monetary system and, through actions based on assuming it would resurface, accidentally caused it to re-emerge.

            Now I’m seeing the same thing again in Chronicles of Elyria. This is a game designed to be almost entirely within the control of the players – they run the governments and control the economies, laws, and the research. It is perfectly set up for people to test new ways of doing things, and yet... All these people who are setting up governments are setting up the familiar governing systems (to be fair, these are partially built into the game’s feudal system), planning for the same familiar capitalistic monetary systems, and planning on law systems that reflect our own.

            I don’t fault them for any of this – it’s all very practical – but I can’t help seeing these scenarios and thinking, why are we just doing the same things over again? Why are we reusing material that, while it works, we know it doesn’t work well? In the real world, I understand – change takes a lot of time, investment, and risk in the real world. On the other hand, in a game, when given this much ability to build and design how the world will function, there is far less risk. Why do we fall back on the same old dysfunctional systems?

            Familiarity is the key, I believe. It’s familiar, comfortable, and easy, so that’s how we choose to do things. We know it isn’t perfect, but at least we know what to expect. It’s all very sensible, of course, but we’re missing out on trying to find a better way of doing things. If we can’t be bothered to find a better way in our fiction, how can we expect to find a better way in our reality?

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.

Reflective Debates

            This week I had the fascinating experience of participating in a political debate. Not real for real politics, of course, although real enough to merit the attention of myself and others. However, like most things that aren’t real, it granted very accurate insight into the function of real politics – and I came out not only with a greater respect for politicians, but with a much greater understanding of why it takes them so long to get anything done.

            The topic for debate was around the development of policies for the group I joined that is eagerly awaiting the release of the Chronicles of Elyria. In essence, a decision needed to be made on how to deal with people who choose to settle on our land, but choose not to officially join the larger group. It may not seem like such a hard decision to make, but there are a lot of nuances surrounding it.

            For a bit more frame of reference, in Elyria (which is a MMORPG), the governmental system (including laws and taxes) is controlled by players. So a lot of things have to be considered – such as military strategy, infrastructure, and resource management (as resources are finite and can be exhausted). So the question was, if someone takes control of some land and pays their taxes and follows the laws of the larger governing body, but doesn’t engage in the co-operative initiatives of the larger group, how should they be handled?

            This topic had been getting discussed by the policy-makers, and when it came down to being time for making the policy, they put out a call for anyone interested in helping to write it. I suggested an open forum for the discussion, and was surprised when it actually happened – and resulted in a five hour long conversation.

            I won’t bore you with the details, but it boiled down to two polar ideals, with everyone involved somewhere on a spectrum between the two. At one end were the people who believed that the settlements should be left alone so long as they didn’t prove hostile or cause problems by being unwilling to trade resources, and at the other end were the people who believed such settlements as refuse to join the bigger group should be immediately and forcefully eliminated.

            The result, in the end, is still yet to be determined – but we provided some new ideas for the policy writers, and showed them that the will of the people had the same spectrum of opinions as the governing body – which was determined to be a good thing, as it meant the views of the people were accurately represented.

            For my part, it was mostly an enjoyable experience, working with the more open-minded people to find a middle ground. There was also some frustration with the less open-minded people who, rather than discussing, stated their opinion repeatedly and wouldn’t sway from their viewpoint in the least.

            Coming out of it, my overall thought was, “Well... so this is why governments in the real world take so long to accomplish anything.” Suddenly I have more respect for what politicians deal with.

            And, once again, we see how well fiction reflects reality. Many people may declaim that “it’s just a game”, but what we’re seeing is a microcosm that reflects our own world. I can’t wait for this game to launch so I can see where this goes.

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.

Earn the Right to Complain

            This week, as I cast my vote for my provincial elections at an early polling station, I was asked if this was my first time voting. Amused, I replied that it wasn’t, and assured the questioner that I’m somewhat older than I look. But, then I reflected on it and realized that, while I’ve voted in the last few federal elections, this may actually be my first time voting in a provincial one.

            Looking back, I distinctly remember not caring at all when I was first old enough to vote. I didn’t see what good it would do – I was only one person, after all, and, quite frankly, I didn’t care what the government did. I didn’t feel that who was elected to government had any direct impact on my life. So, I didn’t vote.

            I think it’s a major failing in our education system that we don’t teach people the importance of voting – at least, not in a way that sticks or that they care about. I did have a mandatory Civics course that lasted half a semester where we were taught how to vote and given the basics on the structure of the government, but I don’t recall being taught the why of any of it. Admittedly it may have been because I lacked interest and none of what I was taught stuck, but young people not voting seems far too common a thing for it to have been just me.

            So, it falls to parents to educate their children on voting, which is a catastrophe on its own. Some people don’t vote because they don’t care and don’t think it matters, while others vote for the same party every time because that’s what’s “done”, and others believe people should choose for themselves and avoid talking about it at all. It’s made all the more difficult because talking about politics is considered a taboo subject.

            It’s fair to say that I picked up my parents’ political leanings, even though it wasn’t a major topic in my house. Even so, it was because I agreed with their views, not because I was blindly following. When I chose not to vote in that first election I was eligible to vote in, they respected my decision – though they reiterated the one idea that had been present all my life: If you don’t vote, you don’t get to complain about the government.

            It’s a very simple idea, yet powerful. It taught me the idea that you have to earn your right to complain about the government by voting, because if you didn’t vote, you obviously didn’t care enough, so it’s your own fault. You may not feel like one vote in a pool of thousands, or millions, counts for much, but if you didn’t cast your vote into that pool, you didn’t partake in the system and, thus, have no right to complain.

            Still, I didn’t vote. Not until a government came into power that started doing things I disagreed with – a government whose every decision seemed to fly in the face of what it meant to be Canadian and that was dragging the international name of Canada through the mud. But, as I saw this, I realized that I couldn’t complain about it. I hadn’t voted, and so I had no right to complain. But the very next federal election, I did vote. The same government ended up in power, but at least this time I felt I had done what I could to fight against it. I had earned my right to complain about what they did.

            So, today’s lesson is: vote. It doesn’t matter if you think who you vote for will win or not, the important part is to make your voice heard, however small it may be. Be it in this election, or any other election to come, anywhere in the world, vote. Vote, or be prepared to remain silent and live with the decisions made by others.

            Earn your right to complain.

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.

The Money Cycle

            There’s a very common saying that says, “You need to spend money to make money.” This statement is incredibly true, but the truth runs deeper than most people think. It is generally believed that this is a statement specifically about running a business, but it holds true for far, far more than that.

            For businesses, the saying is true in the largest and most literal sense. In order to have a location to do business, money is needed to pay for it. Before you can sell something (thus, making money), you first need to buy it. Further to that, a business needs to get noticed so people will actually know to come buy from it – so it must spend money on marketing.

            Yet, the average person needs to spend money to make money as well. It isn’t as noticeable because it’s so built in to our awareness that it just comes naturally. The first, and most obvious, is feeding ourselves. If we don’t buy food, we don’t eat and we become inefficient workers, losing our jobs. When seeking a job, we need resumes (money), transportation (money), and, most likely, some technological assistance (money). Then, when we get an interview, we are expected to look our best – which costs money. And if you want a job that requires a higher level of education? You guessed it: money.

            At any walk of life, you need money to make money, and it’s frustrating when people fail to understand that. This week I saw an article about a government refusing to provide homeless shelters because it was ‘enabling’ homeless people and not ‘motivating’ them. So, let’s pretend for a moment that it’s true that homeless people are homeless because they ‘aren’t trying hard enough’. Let’s pretend that there are no mental illnesses, no health problems, and no other factors contributing to homelessness other than how hard they try to get a job.

            So, how is this fictional, perfectly healthy homeless person to get a job? They need you job hunt – which takes money. They need to look presentable – which takes money. They likely need a bank account, which takes money, not to mention an address – which means a home and, once again, money. They may even need an education, a.k.a. money.

            It’s a circular paradox we’ve built into our system. It works only because we are introduced into the cycle – we have other people (usually parents or banks) front the money so we can start making money, and we just continue on from there. But what happens when we fall out of the cycle? What happens when you run out of money and have no way of making more?

            You fall on the ground and get dragged along, barely able to survive until someone generous comes along to pick you up. Someone who can give you enough money that jump-starts you back into the cycle again.

            Rather than standing over a pit someone has fallen into, yelling at them about how useless they are and telling them to climb out on their own, perhaps we should lower a ladder for them. For a government, it’s really as simple as going back to that saying: spend money to make money. If these people are really a ‘drain on the system’, spend more money on them so they can become able to earn their own money. Then you’re not paying for them anymore and they can start paying taxes to you. You spent money to make money, and now they can do it too.

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.

Hierarchical Flaws

            While pondering about society, as I am wont to do, I came across something I view as a critical flaw. The hierarchy of many of our systems works backwards.

            We’ll start by looking at the workforce. In order for society to function, people need to perform various jobs. To encourage people to do these jobs, they are paid money – which they require so they can go on eating and paying bills and such. This isn’t entirely bad, but the desperate need for money does.

            In ancient times, it was possible for people without a source of money to live off the land and, if they needed to, go out into the wilderness and build themselves a home. Now, at least in first world countries, they can’t do that. Not only have we lost the basic skill sets, but even if we wanted to go homesteading we’d still have to buy the land and pay taxes on it. We’d need a job.

            Having a job to make money has become such a desperate need that people destroy themselves and their mental health just to get and keep one. This is made worse by the shortage of jobs – employers have been given the leverage that if you don’t do the job exactly how they want you to, they can easily replace you. This adds to the pressure of a job and has the employees working under threat (rather than positive motivation) and creates a harmful relationship between employers and employees.

            In short, people are desperate for money, so they will do work they hate in harmful environments to keep their employers happy. But, what if that were reversed? What if, instead of people pushing themselves further and further to get and keep jobs, employers had to entice the best employees to come work for them? What if it became the employer’s responsibility to make people want to work or them?

            Some companies with enough money to throw around already do this, but in many of the biggest companies it has become just a gesture. There are “Benefits” given to the employees, but where is the effort to make the employees enjoy the work environment? Any given employer shouldn’t be driving their employees with a whip, but a member of the team working to make everything run smoothly. They should be as accountable to their employees as the employees are to them.

            The same theory can be applied to governments. There is a great divide between governments and their people, because we have this idea the government members are in charge of the rest of us. They wield the power, after all. People talk about the government as if they are an alien race.

            Yet, if everything functioned as it should, people could bring problems to the government to get them resolved. Yes, that is partially available through the court system, but that doesn’t work for everything. How much faster would potholes get fixed if the government was more approachable?

            Our world is divided into hierarchies, with the idea that the person below has to do whatever the person above says. This structure is needed because there needs to be someone observing what is happening – someone who is not directly involved who can see the whole picture and direct the flow to ensure productivity and efficiency. However, if that person is “better than” their underlings, they become more of a problem than a help. It’s all very well telling people something has to be done, but if you don’t know if it’s possible or if the manpower exists for it, you’re just causing problems. When there is a view of equality, the underlings can express their concerns and the problems with instructions and, together, the team can find a solution.

            Being at the top of a hierarchy is a responsibility, but it has become a goal and a perk – which is the inherent problem with a hierarchical structure. Once someone has been given the power, why should they bother with more than they have to? Why should they listen to the people below them?

            It keep things running smoothly and properly, that’s why.

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.

Whoops, Politics Happened

            I generally try to keep politics out of my blog posts. Sometimes I wonder why and quickly remind myself it’s because that’s one of those topics we’re not supposed to talk about. Politics and religion. It’s too easy to upset people. Besides, that's not what I (or my blog) is about.

            Unfortunately, right now, Canadian politics are frustrating me so much that I can’t get them off my mind. I’ve just spent the last half hour trying to find something else to talk about, but my mind kept circling back to this.

            Canadian democracy. How it’s supposed to work vs how it actually works.

            Let’s pretend for a moment that Canada is much smaller than it is. Let’s say there are ten cities governed by one body. The government is supposed to be representative of what the people want, so each city sends one person in to represent them. This person is elected from a selection of candidates, each of which presents their ideas on how the country should be run. People vote for the person who they feel best represents their ideals whoever wins becomes part of the government.

            We now have a government made up of ten people. Those ten elect one of their members to be their chairperson and spokesperson. That person doesn’t have much more power than the rest; they’re just in charge of keeping the meetings running smoothly. The ten of them discuss issues, vote and deliver their decisions.

            That’s how it’s supposed to work, only on a much larger scale. That’s where it starts to fall apart. The first problem is that there are too many cities, so the country is divided into districts. Each representative now represents far more people, too many for them to possibly get to know everyone personally.

            The second problem is that, even separated into districts, there are still 338 representatives. That’s a whole lot of people who have to agree upon one spokesperson, the Prime Minister, from amongst themselves, or to come to any decision for that matter.

            The solution? The candidates arrange themselves into parties, networking themselves with people with similar ideals and working together to earn a victory. They pre-pick who will be the Prime Minister if their party if their party wins more seats than the others.

            The idea is solid and it worked to a certain extent, except for the part where three major parties rose to the top. With these three parties playing tug-of-war over the majority of votes, a problem began to arise. Each party obtained loyal supporters, who will vote for them no matter what. Then, in the middle, there are the swing votes – the people who like to believe they are more politically informed and will vote based on the issues.

            But, rather than voting for the individual they want to represent themselves, they vote for the party and the Prime Minister they think will do the best job. In fact, most Canadians don’t even realise they’re supposed to be voting for their local representative rather than the Prime Minister – or that those representatives, if they win, aren’t supposed to follow the Prime Minister blindly.

            While the representatives are supposed to vote based on what they believe is best for the country and for the people they represent, as part of a party they are expected to follow the pack. If their party wants an issue voted on one way, that’s how they’re expected to vote. With all the pressure, how many will actually vote against their party if they believe their party is wrong?

            So, what we end up with is a room full of people elected by the swing votes. Those people mostly vote in pre-determined ways. Now, if we have a minority government (going back to the ten representative example) with one party with four representatives and the other two with three, we see a government that functions mostly as it should. There is an even distribution of views and so changes are only made if two of the parties agree. Not as much happens, but more Canadians are happy.

            On the other hand, with a majority government (say, five, three and two representatives) the party in power can do pretty much whatever it wants. The only thing to stand in their way are the few representatives willing to go against the flow.

            Of course, this is where things start to get really messed up. All it takes to get voted in is to have the most votes in your district. This means if 35% of the people vote for you, and the majority of the votes are split between your opponents, you still get in.

            And so starts the dirty politics. The focus shifts from sharing your great ideas for the country to making your opponents look bad. It won’t work for all their supporters, but you just have to sway them enough to keep the votes split between them. As long as you don’t look as bad as they do, you can win with 34% of the voters behind you – less, if your district has smaller parties and independent candidates to absorb more of your opponents’ votes.

            Here, we come to Canada’s greatest problem. We have one right-wing party, two major left-wing parties and a further two less substantial left-wing parties. The vast majority of Canadians voted for left-wing parties, yet we ended up with a right-wing majority government. How? Because with four left-wing parties to choose from, the single right-wing party just had to keep their loyal supporters, win a handful of the swing vote (using manipulative fear tactics to scare them away from the opposition), and make the other parties split the vote.

            The worst part is that the left-wing parities perpetuate the problem. In their struggle to rise to the top, they further split the vote. The majority of Canadians are sick of our right-wing government and our Prime Minister who thinks he should be allowed to do whatever he wants. Our left-wing parties know this, so they are fighting harder than ever to win, knowing that they have the support of the country.

            Yet, they are further splitting the vote. They are even helping the right-wing party by attacking their left-wing fellows on petty details when they should really be teaming up. All it would take for them is for them to work together a little – to have some candidates drop out of key swing districts so the vote won’t be split. Then we’d end up with a government we’re at least reasonably happy with.

            Since both major left-wing parties want to alter the electoral system so that more votes actually count in the end result of elections, they would only have to do this once. Then they could work together to implement the better voting system they’ve promised and Canadians will actually end up with governments the majority of them are happy with.

            Well, as happy with as is possible.

            I’m just tilting at windmills, though, aren’t I? All I can do is shout out to my fellow Canadians and encourage them to vote. You all know who not to vote for – although, I suppose if you’re voting for them already, nothing I say is going to change that (and, for those people, I want to assure you that I’m not saying the right-wing should be out of the government. Everyone deserves their representation. That representation should just be proportional to what the people want, and that is not a majority right-wing government.)

So, really, this is for the 9 million Canadians who didn’t vote in the last election because they thought they wouldn't make a difference.

            Vote. Because this is probably the most important election in Canadian history and you can make a difference.

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.

Why Not End War?

*Disclaimer* Remembrance Day is a pet peeve of mine and, while expressing my ideas on the subject, what I say can sometimes come across as saying that veterans do not deserve our thanks. This is not the case – I simply believe they should not be hero worshipped because that leads to others following in their footsteps and suffering as the veterans have (or falling in battle, causing their families to suffer). I also believe that Remembrance Day should be focused on remembering the tragedies of war so we can stop repeating our mistakes. Gratitude to those who have sacrificed for us should be a constant, passive thing, not something that dominates a day that was once – and should still be – dedicated to peace. If you have strong emotions related to this subject, you may want to stop reading now.

            One day I thought to myself, wouldn't the world be a much better place if every country in the world disbanded their armies and ceased production of all weapons? What a wonderful world that would be.

            Then I stopped to think about what would actually happen.

            According to Wikipedia, Canada has 104,150 people in militaristic jobs. The UK has 371,360. USA, 2,231,447. I started to add up all the countries, then decided it would take too long. I was at over ten million, though, and I’d barely scratched the surface. This doesn't even include the researchers or the people who make the weapons and uniforms.

            So, what would happen if the world did away with war and violence? Mass unemployment. Certainly some of those jobs could be repurposed, but there already aren't enough jobs to go around.

            Why not just have those people in reserve, trained and ready in case we are attacked? Because if no one is fighting, people begin to wonder why their taxes are paying all these people. So the soldiers are sent off to fight – and often to die, which (dare I say it) “conveniently” eliminates the excess population that the world doesn't have enough jobs for.

            It all becomes a great cycle then. We need war so we can employ soldiers so people can afford to eat. If we eliminate war, the whole economy comes crashing down around our ears.

            Like many others, I dream of a world at peace, but it will never happen unless we drastically change the way our economy works. My vote is that we stop siphoning money off of arts programs and we flood the world with artists.

            That is something I’d like you to think about this Remembrance Day (or whatever November 11^th is in your country). I’d like you to think about how much society pressures us into remembering and thanking veterans, how we are taught that they are heroes so that more of us will follow in their footsteps.

            I want you to think about all the lives lost or ruined because we don’t know how to make the economy work without war. What a waste.

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.