Evaluation Set Emotion vs Reason Quick Question

questions
#1

I feel like these two elements should be flipped. Could anyone let me know what I’m not seeing?

In the Evaluation Set of Elements for Characters

Emotion Archetype - TEST - to try out an idea to see if it is correct, to try things out before using them.

VS

Reason Archetype- TRUST - Acceptance without evidence without proof, without proof.

It seems to be that Reason character would want to TEST things (logically) to see if they are true and a emotional character would be the one that would just instinctively TRUST something. Not the way it is currently laid out in dramatica.

Character types assignments "doubling up" characters in quads
The Methodologies, Purposes, and Evaluations of the Archetypes
#2

The Archetypes really don’t work outside of the Motivation set. I wouldn’t worry about it. Better would be to search for the Dramatica Lost Theory Book and see some of the alternate archetypes Melanie came up with for the Evaluation set.

2 Likes
#3

The Methodology archetypes are the most consistent of the ‘alternates’ batch. The Evaluation set starts out right but eventually violates the “only one element per quad per character” guideline (also Outcome and Intent are supposedly opposites, but their actual functions are not dynamically opposed), and the Purposes set is unfinished.

Definitely an interesting and informative read. I appreciated the original eight archetypes as an introduction to the motivational elements – I’ve always felt weaker on the other sets, perhaps because of the lack of an “easy in.”

1 Like
#4

The one element per quad per character guideline is just a suggestion to give Authors an opportunity for greater character interaction. There isn’t anything wrong theoretically to have more than one element per quad in a character. The dynamic pair might be a bit of a problem because of the schizophrenic nature of it, but Companion pairs and Dependent pairs aren’t an issue.

You probably already knew this, but I wanted to make sure people new to the theory didn’t get confused.

1 Like
#5

Yes! I was aware it was a guideline more than a hard rule, so I should have been clearer on that.