Going to take these one at a time and hopefully answer your questions along the way.
As with all things Dramatica, a balance exists. The Goal and Consequence of a narrative work together the same the Protagonist and Antagonist do, the Main Character and Influence Character do, and any number of dynamic relationships within the model.
The balance between the Goal and Consequence manifest through their relative positioning in the narrative model. If the Goal of a story ends up in the upper right quadrant of a particular Domain, the Consequence will lie in the same upper right quadrant of the Domain diagonally opposite. This positioning ties the two Static Plot Points together, providing a natural harmony within the story.
So, a Goal of Impulsive Responses would need a Consequence of Progress, or How Things are Changing, in order to complete the narrative. A Consequence of Playing a Role would require a Goal of Doing in order to complete the narrative.
You likely didn't know this when you pointed to a Story Goal of Impulsive Response and a Consequence of Playing a Role, but if you think of how these two story points relate logically, balancing them in the manner described above makes the most sense.
If we can't fight the Empire, then we will have to live under their oppression (Story Goal of Doing, Story Consequence of Playing a Role - Star Wars).
Note: I know you requested for me not to provide examples from movies or other stories, but I think it's an excellent opportunity to explain how these story points work in concert. Instead of speaking esoterically, I can point to specific examples, of stories that work, and explain how their individual Goals and Consequences play out.
If we don't tear down the Matrix, then we will become batteries for computers (Story Goal of Obtaining, Story Consequence of Becoming, or Changing One's Nature - The Matrix)
If we don't consider that priests may be abusing boys, then the status quo will continue (Story Goal of Contemplations, Story Consequence of the Present - Doubt)
If we don't get together, then we will be stuck wondering what could have been (Story Goal of the Present, Story Consequence of Contemplations - Moonlight)
If we don't follow through on the deceased father's plan for his son to live with his uncle, then we will come to the understanding that the uncle simply can't be a father right now (Story Goal of Conceptualizing or Developing a Plan, Story Consequence of Understanding - Manchester by the Sea).
Hopefully, you can see logical relationship that exists when the Goal and Consequence are positioned this way.
Contrast the above examples with this:
If they can't act impulsively, then they will play the role of soldiers (Story Goal of Impulsive Responses, Story Consequences of Playing a Role)
Actually, that sounds good...
...and that's because acting impulsively is not Impulsive Responses, but rather DOING. It describes the process of engaging in problematic activity, not the state of mind that exists within the Preconscious (Impulsive Responses).
A Story Goal of Impulsive Responses would be someone pursuing a state of mind akin to panic or nervousness. When Impulsive Responses become a problem within a story, anxiety becomes an actual problem and animalistic instincts kick into play and wreak havoc (see Laura in Logan for an insanely great example of this).
Besides immersing yourself in film examples and reading the dictionary and contextual examples provided by Dramatica, another good learning tool (besides my Dramatica® Mentorship Program!) is the list of Gists provided within the latest version of Dramatica Story Expert.
There you will find references to being jumpy, being oversensitive, and being fidgety. On the other side, you'll find being calm, and numbing oneself, and being unresponsive.
Yes, the Accords are a knee-jerk reaction, but the Accords are not shown to be problematic. They don't create conflict, they just sit there. From the point-of-view of the characters, again, yes, they do like a problem and yes they argue about them the way they should when they're looking at Symptom and Response, but they are not problematic in and of themselves.
In other words, the knee-jerk reactions do not overcomplicate things and there is no struggle impulsive response-ing to violence. Instead, they are depicted as responses to a symptom. The Avengers are free to do whatever they want and so, we need to lock them down (Symptom of Uncontrolled, Response of Control).
So the logic behind positioning Cap as Protagonist in a Story Goal of Impulsive Response begins to break down. If that was the Goal of the story, that would mean Cap would be trying to pursue an anxious state of mind or pursuing a calm state of mind.
That would also mean that Stark, as Antagonist, would be trying to prevent, or avoid this state of mind. So which one is it?
Is Cap pursuing a calm state of mind and Tony is trying to prevent it?
Is Cap pursuing an anxious state of mind and Tony is trying to prevent it?
Neither of these makes logical sense. In fact, if anything they seem to be on the same side when it comes to panic. The logical relationship between the Protagonist and the Antagonist breaks down and that's a problem--because the Overall Story Throughline and the Static Plot Points are all about logic.
If the Story Goal is Impulsive Responses, then the end goal has to be this universal embrace of Impulsive Responses. Not talking about Impulsive Responses, but rather Impulsive Response themselves. This is what I mean about looking to the story points and their appreciations as indicators of storytelling, rather than inflection points of inequity. This is what I mean by looking at a storyform from the point-of-view of the characters rather than from the point-of-view of the story.
If the Goal is preserving the right for superheroes to act, well that's an Obtaining Goal because the goal requires Obtaining, not Impulsive Response-ing. I use Impulsive-Response-ing as a means of illustrating the active nature of a Story Goal. I don't believe there is a word in the English language that defines an active embracing of Impulsive Responses the way there is Contemplating, Desiring, Remembering, Understanding, Doing, Obtaining, Learning, Being, Becoming, Conceptualizing, Conceiving, and Progressing.
But neither is there a word in the English language for Past-ing, or Present-ing, or Future-ing. But Present-ing can be the Goal of a story. Chiron "present-ing" himself before Kevin at the end of Moonlight tells of a successful achievement of that Story Goal.
To further the logical breakdown, suggesting that Trust guarantees a lack of a state of anxiety or panic, means the Goal was a lack of anxiety or panic over the Avengers and the story ends in Failure.
But wait, isn't everyone still in a state of panic over the Avengers? Was the Goal achieved or was it not?
None of this makes sense (and is very difficult to write, I might add!)
A Failure story means the Antagonist "wins". The Antagonist, as the force for prevention and/or avoidance, is for the Consequence. So if the Goal is not met, and the Consequence falls into place well then, the character for the prevention of that resolution achieves the Consequence.
By this logic, this means Tony "wins" and because now things are in a state of progress.
I'm not sure the story presents Tony winning at the end. I'm not sure Tony, in his attempts to follow along with the Accords, is somehow looking towards Progress as his end goal. And even if he was, I'm not sure that his version of Progress is the progress that is actually in place at the end of the story.
Once you understand the relationship between the Story Goal and the Story Consequence, and the relationship between the Protagonist and the Goal and the Antagonist and the Goal, trying to argue an illogical arrangement becomes almost impossible.
Contrast the above with this very simple representation of the forces at play:
- The Story Goal is to exact revenge on the Avengers by tearing them apart
- The Story Consequence of failing to exact that revenge is that the world will become a place where superheroes can do whatever they want, whenever they want, regardless of who they hurt or kill
- The Protagonist trying to achieve that Goal of revenge is Zemo
- The Antagonist trying to prevent that Goal and get everyone else to reconsider a different approach is Captain America
- The Problem is everyone trying to Prevent and/or Avoid further casualties. As long as there is motivation to prevent violence, violence will continue to escalate.
- The Solution to everyone's problem is for someone to Pursue an end to the violence.
This happens when Tony turns on Cap in order to kill Bucky.
It's all very logical and very simple.
Note how I'm able to describe them in short, clear sentences. Often when a writer takes paragraphs and paragraphs to describe a story point (not saying this is necessarily you), they are talking around the story point, rather than getting right to the point.
That's why I refer to it as a "typical Revenge story" because more often than not, revenge stories end up examining issues of problematic Self Interest with specific problems of Avoidance, Pursuit, Uncontrolled, and Controlled. And by Self Interest I don't mean selfish...I mean Self Interest in the Dramatica sense, as in "my way or the highway."
I will address objectivity, subjectivity, inequity, and story points as storytelling in future posts. For now, I wanted to focus on a greater understanding of what Dramatica means by its concepts and terminology, and how one can simply and effectively determine these story points accurately within a narrative.