As authors, we want our stories to reflect the values that we believe in. We want to write with integrity, discouraging those things we believe to be wrong and championing those things we believe to be right. But our characters don’t always believe the same things we do (nor should they; we write stories, not sermons!), which can lead to a tricky balancing act: being true to the characters and their stories without compromising what we believe or endorsing behavior we believe to be wrong. How do you handle that tension? Here are some tips.

This question was originally brought up by an email subscriber. Thanks to Joshua for the question!

There are two things I try to show in my writing when characters are operating from a worldview I disagree with; one is natural consequence, and one is disagreement from other characters. Neither of these has to be super overt, but including them on some level when a character’s behavior calls for them can help maintain the thematic integrity of your story.

Natural Consequences

All actions have consequences—whether positive or negative. Even if not immediate, negative behavior leads to negative consequences and positive behavior leads to positive consequences. Making use of these consequences is a really simple way to maintain a sense of right and wrong within your story—even if your characters’ moral compass isn’t entirely in line with your own.

There are a couple of things to keep in mind when using natural consequences. First of all, consequences are not always immediate—and to portray them that way in every instance runs the risk of making your story feel unrealistic and/or preachy. Some consequences are immediate—whether physical consequences like burning your hand when you touch something hot or metaphysical consequences like feeling guilty after you’ve stolen something—but some positive choices are uncomfortable for a time before they pay off, and some negative choices lead to immediate gratification before the negative consequences catch up. Portraying that instant or delayed gratification doesn’t negate the use of appropriate positive and negative consequences further along in the story.

Secondly, natural consequences should be proportionate to the action taken by the characters. A character who misplaces their faith might not see such drastic consequences as one who cusses up a storm or is actively immoral in some way, for instance. If a character steals something, they’ll have to deal with the attempted restoration of that thing—whether that means they’re pursued by the owner, pursued by the authorities, forced to return the item, forced to make additional restitution, imprisoned, etc. (The consequences will obviously depend on the particular circumstances and on the value of the thing your character stole.) Note that this idea of proportions applies to positive as well as negative actions.

In Calligraphy Guild, most of the characters follow a false religion, and the natural consequence I show is that their faith is insecure and they struggle with a great deal of doubt that’s never really resolved. This is contrasted with the characters who do believe in the world’s true God and find greater peace and firmer answers to their questions. It’s not a huge, obvious sort of consequence, but it is there.

Character Disagreement

Sometimes, you can raise the question of “is this behavior right or wrong?” and ensure your reader thinks through the morality of your characters by presenting a contrasting perspective within the story—through another character.

Disagreement from other characters should depend, of course, on the other characters in question. You can’t force a character to disagree with another, but any characters coming from different worldviews will have disagreements (the degree of disagreement depending on the degree of difference between worldviews).

Some characters will be really obvious and direct about their disagreement based on their personalities and/or how strong their convictions are about something; a really blunt or combative character might prompt arguments and debates with a character they disagree with, while a quieter character might simply be uncomfortable but try to ignore whatever it is they disagree with from the other character. Either way, you’re giving the reader multiple viewpoints and preventing the impression that your story is giving a blanket endorsement of the worldview you disagree with.

If you do have a character who would make a bigger deal of the disagreement, they might be on the side you want to promote or on the side you don’t want to promote. Either way, you can make this disagreement useful (when it’s in-character) to reinforce the values you believe in—or, at the very least, to raise the question for the reader.

In Calligraphy Guild, the predominant character who believes in the true God isn’t especially out-there about her faith; it’s common knowledge, but she doesn’t make a big deal of it. One of the characters struggling with doubt in her false gods, however, is a more argumentative character who ends up spurring a debate about religion; she’s the one who creates the opportunity for a more overt discussion of the topic, which allows for a more direct portrayal of both worldviews.

Levels of Subtlety

If you keep things proportionate and in-character, you can make the portrayal of differing worldviews as overt or as subtle as it needs to be for the story you’re telling. As you may be able to tell from these examples, Calligraphy Guild doesn’t have a heavy focus on showing a “right” and “wrong” worldview—despite one or two scenes in which these worldviews do overtly clash. The portrayal of these worldviews—and their disagreement with one another—arose naturally from the types of characters I wrote about.

The Lightning duology does have certain worldview elements that are more directly addressed, and greater clashes between characters over certain values and choices. As a small-scale example: Erika has no qualms about using coarse language while her best friend Nyla, on the other hand, finds it unpleasant to use or hear; Nyla doesn’t make a big deal of it because she prefers to keep the peace most of the time, but it is a point of minor tension between them and it is highlighted in small ways throughout the duology.

If your story isn’t suited to lots of worldview debate, you can still use these elements in subtle ways to avoid endorsing wrong behavior. If your story is served by more overt discussion of morality, you can ramp up these elements to make a bigger deal of the questions your characters’ actions raise. In any case, these are the two things I’ve found most helpful in contrasting right and wrong within the storytelling process.

What do you think? Which of these elements makes the most sense in the story you’re telling? Do you have any thoughts to add? Share in the comments!

Looking for more guidance in incorporating your values into your storytelling? Subscribe for access to my list of Worldview Focus Questions!

The post Portraying Characters When Your Worldviews Clash appeared first on Scribes & Archers.