Very easy to make - in fact, Child of the Storm seems to thrive on the potential ambiguity.
- Is Nick Fury a well-intentioned but necessarily ruthless Anti-Hero dedicated to the protection of humanity from the monsters in the dark, or is he a vindictive sociopath hell-bent on abusing his position to exact revenge on those who have wronged him and those he cares for, no matter whether or not they've given up their past villainy?
- And in the same vein, is Peter Wisdom a.k.a. Regulus Black much the same in terms of being dedicated to protecting humanity from the monsters in the dark, wanting to level the playing field with the supernatural powers who've been swaggering around with relative impunity for millennia, and dedicated to taking control of the British Wizarding community because he genuinely wants the best for Britain? Or is he a half-crazed, power-hungry Manipulative Bastard and an obsessive Hunter of His Own Kind who's just out for revenge against the Ministry for the way they handled Voldemort the first time? It's made pretty clear that he is genuinely committed to doing what (he thinks) is best for Britain, but that still leaves a fair amount of room open for interpretation.
- Is Baron Zemo really a polite, if cool, gentleman with a genuine respect for his opponents, Undying Loyalty to HYDRA itself and a genuine conviction in its Social Darwinist beliefs, or simply The Sociopath, a Blood Knight intent on nothing more than testing his skills against the very best who has deemed HYDRA to be a useful means through which to do so?
- Is Sean Cassidy really a fairly happy-go-lucky fellow, determined to be cheerful despite it all, and a good mentor, or is that simply a mask for a cold, Revenge-obsessed master spy and assassin?
- Was Alexander Pierce unaware of the Shadow Initiative? Or did he know about it (or just know Fury well enough to suspect he had a backup plan, even if he didn't know the details), and intended to use it to further cement his own position with SHIELD? His brief conversation with Lucius implies the latter, but it's unclear.
- Why is Pierce content to let Fury keep the matter of the Lost Omega shut away? Is it out of genuine respect for his friend? Is it because he figures that he has enough inroads into SHIELD that if/when the Lost Omega shows up, he'll know about it? Is it that he's tried looking into the matter before and couldn't make any headway, so reluctantly conceded defeat?
- Is Harry a remarkably well-adjusted, mature, if snarky kid (considering the Avengers, the latter is inevitable), with the potential to be his generation's Captain America? Or is he a Shell-Shocked Veteran whose snark is a defence mechanism, a de facto Child Soldier with a Hair-Trigger Temper used to using intimidation to get his way, who is slowly developing into a Dark Messiah on par with or beyond Magneto himself - or, as the Dark Phoenix, much, much worse? The answer, as Doctor Strange remarks in chapter 75 of the first book, is that he could quite easily become either depending on the choices he makes. One way he could become a great hero, the other way he could become 'the thing men fear', and he spends most of Ghosts struggling with walking the line between the two.
- Is Doctor Strange a benevolent Deadpan Snarker and Big Good for the universe who works tirelessly to ensure that the good guys get through largely unscathed and deeply regrets the sacrifices he must make, or is he a spectacularly ruthless Manipulative Bastard running a Xanatos Gambit of unimaginable scale, whose benevolent façade falls away when it is not needed, trades on his cultivated reputation for never lying to ensure that people do what he needs them to, turns children and adults alike into his weapons in ways so subtle that they don't even notice and is entirely willing to sacrifice thousands of good people through action or inaction in order to sharpen his tools for a future battle and bring about his vision of a better future?
- Chapter 80 reveals the answer: Both. While, yes, he could have just saved the day by revealing everything he knew, it would have resulted in potentially worse results, and none of the friendships and good ties made due to the fight against HYDRA would have happened. He regrets that so many people died, and wishes he could have done otherwise, but had he prevented the deaths of today, he would have been unable to stop the disasters of the future.
- Regarding the same character: How many of the things he does are part of him cunningly planning for and manipulating the future, and how many just to mess with people? Or both, at the same time?
- Was Dr. Essex's slip-up when speaking to Harry and Carol a genuine one? Or was it deliberate?
- Are Dracula's Pet the Dog moments out of a genuine sense of compassion for his fellow Grey Court vampires? Or is it just more of his Pragmatic Villainy at work, given that the Grey Court is most likely pretty small, and probably can't afford to waste powerful, intelligent minions? The Phoenix all but destroyed the Grey Court just 110 years before (not very long in immortal terms), and the publication of Dracula and Buffy the Vampire Slayer (despite the former being more dangerous to the Black Court) can't have helped matters any. Not to mention the sheer amount of Asgardians, superheroes, and other powerful beings running around with no love for Dracula and his kind.
- On a lighter note: Is Clark indulging in It's All About Me by viewing himself as the loser in a romantic competition over Lana, who hasn't shown any real sign of romantic interest in him, and Harry's What the Hell, Hero? comments understandable in that he's seen a scenario much like this in the Ron-Hermione-Krum triangle? Or are his actions and feelings understandable, while Harry's What the Hell, Hero? is Unintentionally Unsympathetic due to the fact that this is not the same, and separately, neither he nor Carol was ever interested in anyone else? Harry later nods to this, noting to Clark that he's not best placed to advise him on love as his romantic experience is... unique, to put it mildly.
- Marie Danvers, even after her Hidden Depths emerge in Book 2. Is she a good mother who loves her children deeply, attempts to ameliorate the worst of her husband's psychological abuses, and is deeply protective of them? Or is she, despite her protestations to the contrary, still guilty of letting the abuse go on for years until Joe crossed a line she couldn't ignore?
- How much was Wanda wrong to try and hide Hermione's identity from her? On the one hand, it's very understandable that she wants Hermione to have some kind of normal life without being in her mother's shadow and dealing with their complicated family dynamics (also, her parents' enemies, who Strange was pretty sure that Harry wouldn't survive, let alone Hermione), which was never a possibility for Harry. On the other hand, Hermione was all but guaranteed to figure it out at some point or another (or some enemy of Wanda and/or John's might have) and sitting her down for a talk once it became clear her chaos magic was coming through strongly would have made things a lot easier on everyone. It's indicated that it's a little bit of both - Strange implies that in many timelines, Hermione's mutation emerged in a much less traumatic fashion, meaning that there wasn't the same degree of bad blood to begin with (but it didn't go that way, because chaos magic is like that). That, or Wanda nerved herself up before it emerged, which Wanda blamed herself for not doing.
- When Lily meets Hermione in Book II, she doesn't tell Hermione about her parentage, despite the fact that it's implied she can tell it'll soon be an issue (even without foresight, it's fairly obvious). Is this out of friendship with Wanda? Is it because Lily felt that they didn't have much time to talk, and Hermione and Harry were under enough stress already without having to deal with that emotional fallout? Is she, like her son, being too darn cryptic for her own good? Some mix of the above?
- In general: How fair are the justice systems in this world? People can be locked up indefinitely with no trial or hope of release. For example, Vernon and Petunia, who while definitely guilty of child abuse, are subjected to solitary imprisonment for life in a super-max prison, without even a clear understanding at first of why they were locked up, and spend months without being able to see each other at all. Narcissa Malfoy is similarly locked up indefinitely, and it also takes almost literal divine intervention for her to see her son. The White Council and Ministry of Magic are just as bad as in canon.
On the other hand, the Dursleys are in protective custody as much as being punished for any crimes, and given how Loki, Frigga, and Odin would treat the people who made Harry's life a misery, they're almost certainly getting off lightly. In Narcissa's case, she is again in protective custody, and her prison is described as being fairly comfortable. It's discussed in-universe that the White Council have good reasons for what they do (and as seen in Reynolds' case, they will try to be merciful when they can), and the Ministry's corruption is something several characters are noted to be uncomfortable with. Fury's Raft is also stated to only contain the worst super-criminals that nowhere else is safe for, a far cry from the one in the MCU.
