# Additional examples of Characteristics
**URL:** https://discuss.dramatica.com/t/additional-examples-of-characteristics/1301
**Category:** Analysis and Review
**Created:** [October 30, 2017, 5:21am UTC](https://discuss.dramatica.com/t/additional-examples-of-characteristics/1301 "2017-10-30T05:21:33Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@TerryVog](https://discuss.dramatica.com/u/TerryVog)
#### Post date: [October 30, 2017, 5:21am UTC](https://discuss.dramatica.com/t/additional-examples-of-characteristics/1301/1 "2017-10-30T05:21:33Z")
Are there any other sources to find movie analyses with Characteristics?
The analyses included with Dramatica occasionally have a filled in Characteristics pane, and some of them don’t seem to be finished. Take the Star Wars example: all of the Motivation Characteristics are assigned, but none of the Purpose, Evaluation or Methodology Characteristics.
Of course, there are also the Typecasts (Bully, Charmer, Introvert etc) and the Archetypes you get when choosing “New Document From Template…” but I couldn’t find anything else. Suggestions for additional sources?
---
### Author:  [@Gernot](https://discuss.dramatica.com/u/Gernot)
#### Post date: [October 30, 2017, 2:56pm UTC](https://discuss.dramatica.com/t/additional-examples-of-characteristics/1301/2 "2017-10-30T14:56:14Z")
some time ago I went through all examples and copied it into a file for refrence. Hope this is helpful for you and others.
Ability - Villain - seeks to increase his power
Acceptance - Introvert - does not argue
Accurate - Introvert - prone to generalizations that describe facts but has false conclusion
Actuality - Hero - seeks to bring about an actual, real state of affairs
Avoid - Screamer - fakes illness to avoid important business deadline
Aware - Extrovert - is keenly aware of everything and everyone around her
Cause - Bully - focus on the cause of what irritates him, but makes appeare he is not source of trouble
Certainty - Optimist - expresses absolute surety in a favorable outcome
Change - Enthusiast - quick to adapt to new situations, alters as soon it is long enough
Chaos - Screamer - disrupts any attempt at order
Conscience - Mentor - takes responsibility for his decissions
Consider - Hero - thinks about the issues he encounters
Control - Inspector - focused on right and wrong, dominates everything with his only truth
Deduction - Nerd - boils everything down to essentials
Desire - Seducer - is a creature of the heart
Determination - Extrovert - makes judgment calls on direction things should go without thinking through
Disbelief - Pessimist - thinks all good things are impossible
Effect - Villain - is concerned with achieving specific effects
Ending - Mentor - raises a conclusion based on what he has heard
Equity - Optimist - is sure things are all for the best
Evaluation - Doctor - studies the physical condition of his client
Expectation - Villain - puts his plans into effect, confident that they are strong enough
Faith - Optimist - is confident
Feeling - Screamer - is driven by feelings
Help - Helper - wants to assists everyones effort if they doesn’t want any help
Hinder - Bully - is driven to make things difficult for anyone he can
Hunch - Screamer - gives credence to unsubstantiated notions
Inaction - Introvert - does not get involved
Induction - Artist - can see the big picture and envision what can happen in several years
Inequity - Villain - wants to take things for himself at the expense of others
Inertia - Introvert - prefers a rut
Knowledge - Scientist - wants to know what is true and gives up not before satisfied
Logic - Nerd - is centered on activities of the intellect
NonAcceptance - Bully - is intolerant, unwilling to compromise or let things slide
NonAccurate - Inspector - argues about facts based on his only truth
Oppose - Pessimist - is against any effort to improve things
Order - Inspector - There is only right and wrong
Perception - Charmer - creates perception he is truly interested in those he is manipulating
Possibility - Seducer - leads others on by hinting that intimate rewards are possible
Potentiality - Pessimist - focuses on negative forces which are not specifically impossible
Proaction - Villain - throws the first stone
Probability - Nerd - acts rashly, based on the odds
Process - Screamer - falls apart when the way things are going before real trouble comes
Production - Extrovert - inventive creating something seemingly real apparently out of thin air
Projection - Pessimist - extends a chain of ill-luck into the future with negative assumptions
Protection - Hero - protects all in need
Proven - Pessimist - is confinced that their is enough evidence to expect the worst
Pursuit - Villain - goes after what he wants
Reaction - Screamer - generates no original attitudes but responds intensely to outside stimuli
Reconsider - Villain - forces others to reconsider their course of action
Reduction - Villain - whittles away at the opposition
Reevaluation - Hero - judges his efforts by their results
Result - Seducer - causes others to reevaluate their initial priorities
Self-Aware - Introvert - seeks to know his or herself
Speculation - Coward - engages in wild specs about what happens, w/out indication of likelihood
Support - Optimist - gets behind those who try
Temptation - Seducer - lures others from the proper path
Test - Pessimist - can take nothing at face value and must verify everything
Theory - Nerd - has a logistic explanation for everything
Thought - Nerd - spends much of his time cogitating
Trust - Optimist - puts faith in others
Uncontrolled - Screamer - is completely undirected and unfocused
Unending - Bully - maintains status quo after having established a pecking order
Unproven - Optimist - looses never faith because pending disasters are not certain
---
### Author:  [@jhull](https://discuss.dramatica.com/u/jhull)
#### Post date: [October 30, 2017, 5:11pm UTC](https://discuss.dramatica.com/t/additional-examples-of-characteristics/1301/3 "2017-10-30T17:11:29Z")
Oh wow - this is absolutely incredible!! Thank you so much for sharing…such a great way to learn the difference between elements.
---
### Author:  [@kf27](https://discuss.dramatica.com/u/kf27)
#### Post date: [October 30, 2017, 6:30pm UTC](https://discuss.dramatica.com/t/additional-examples-of-characteristics/1301/4 "2017-10-30T18:30:39Z")
I tried to use Characterization Tropes as gists.
Examples:
Pursuit - The Hero ([http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Laconic/TheHero](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Laconic/TheHero))
Consider - I’m Thinking It Over!
Avoid - Noble Fugitive, The Fugitive
Reconsider - Changed My Mind, Opinion Flipflop
Help - We Help the Helpless, Fairy Godmother
Conscience - The Conscience
Temptation - The Corrupter, The Vamp
Faith - Agent Mulder, The Only Believer
Support - The Igor
Oppose - Commander Contrarian, Rebellious Rebel
Disbelief - Agent Scully, Flat-Earth Atheist, Eskimos Aren’t Real
Control - Nerves of Steel, Control Freak
Logic - The Spock
Uncontroll - A Tragedy of Impulsiveness, Ax-Crazy, Hysterical Woman
Feeling - The Heart, Cheerful Child, Sad Clown
---
### Author:  [@kf27](https://discuss.dramatica.com/u/kf27)
#### Post date: [October 30, 2017, 7:43pm UTC](https://discuss.dramatica.com/t/additional-examples-of-characteristics/1301/5 "2017-10-30T19:43:57Z")
(This is my list, but possibly contains errors…)
Purposes:
Actuality (objective reality; sees right through image and pretense) - I Am What I Am, Become a Real Boy
Knowledge (that which one holds to be true, to rely on what is held to be true) -Bookworm, Living Legend
Perception (more concerned with the way things seem to be than how they really are) -Stepford Smiler, Master of Illusion, Mask of Sanity
Thought (the process of consideration, illuminating every side of an issue) - The Ditherer
Eqiuty (to want everything to work out fair and square, to maintain balance) - All-Loving Hero, Knight in Shining Armor, Hates Everyone Equally?
Procection (an extension of probability into the future, a means of anticipating events) -Combat Clairvoyance, Weather Report, Visionary Villain
Inequity (to evaluate in terms with what is wrong or unfair with a situation) - Parental Favoritism, The Unfavourite
Speculation (what might happen in the future, even though it’s not the most likely scenario) - Conspiracy Theorist
Order (a patterned arrangement, concerned with keeping things organized) - Neat Freak, Aggressive Categorism
Inertia (a continuation of a state or process, to maintain the status quo) - Good Old Ways
Chaos (random change or a lack of order, brilliant at cutting through a Gordian knot) - Chaotic Good/Neutral/Evil, Chaotic Stupid
Change (if things’ve been one way long enough to establish patterns, its time to change) - Shapeshifting?
Desire (mindful of a future where situations or circumstances are improved) - “I Want” Song, It Must Be Mine!
Self aware (being conscious of one’s existence, everything’s set in terms of his own view point) - It’s All About Me, Narcissist, Awesome Ego
Ability (being suited to handle a task; the innate capacity to do or be) - The Ace, The Gift, Super Strength
Aware (being conscious of things outside oneself, misses nothing around him) - Hyper Awareness
Evaluations:
Proven (what’s been shown to be correct to enough people enough times to be considered fact) - ?
Effect (the end product of an effort, the specic outcome forced by a cause) - Toxic Friend Influence
Unproven (an understanding suspected to be true, but not substantiated enough to call it fact) -Maybe Magic, Maybe Mundane
Cause (to be concerned with what is behind a situation or its circumstances) - Fighting for a Homeland, Freudian Excuse
Expectation (what to expect to end at the end of a path) - The Anticipator
Ending (to look for the conclusion in every process or situation, either to prevent it or to hasten it) - ?
Determintaion (a conclusion as to the cause behind a particular effect) - Determinator?
Unending (to see nothing as ever ending, everything is a step leading to another) - Immortality
Accurate (to accept approximations that are “within tolerance” or “good enough” for the purpose at hand) - ?
Result (to consider the ripple effect that might occur from a given cause) - Ms. Red Ink?
Non-Accurate (to end the error that ruins the argument, unable to accept an explanation or concept that isn’t perfect) - The Perfectionist, Grammar Nazi
Process ( an ongoing activity; to keep the engine running smoothly) -?
Hunch (an understanding based on insucient circumstantial evidence) - I Just Knew, Gut Feeling
Test (to try out an idea to see if it is correct, to try things out before using them) - Old Beggar Test, If You’re So Evil, Eat This Kitten
Theory (an unbroken chain of relationships leading from a premise to a conclusion) - Awesomeness by Analysis
Trust (acceptance without evidence, without proof) - Super Gullible
Methodologies:
Certainty (to be completely sure before taking action or accepting something as true) - ?
Proaction (to take initiative, to be at it the moment a problem emerges, to problem solve on one’s own) - Villains Act, Heroes React
Reaction (to strike back at the source of a problem after it materializes) - …
Potentiality (to determine something might become true, to take risks on long odds) - Give Geeks a Chance, Gambit Roulette
Reduction (a process of thought that determines probability) - ?
Evaluation (to create an understanding of how all the parts at together to better grasp how to deal with an issue) - ?
Production (a process of thought that determines potential) - Bungling Inventor
Re-Evaluation (to reconsider one’s first impressions, but easily swayed by new misleading information) -Hollywood Mid-Life Crisis?
Deduction (to arrive at a determination of what is, by limiting out all that cannot be) -?
Aceptance (to allow, tolerate, or adapt, to never oppose) -Exceptionally Tolerant, Easily Forgiven, Yes-Man
Induction (to determine where an unbroken line of causal relationships might lead) - Sherlock Scan??
Non-Acceptance (to not allow, tolerate, compromise, or adapt; a decision to oppose) - Resist the Beast
Possibility (to determine something might be true, to look at a whole range of alternatives) - We Do the Impossible
Protection (to prevent interference with one’s concerns, to build defenses against actual & potential threats) - Super Hero, Overprotective Dad, Protectorate
Probability (to put beliefs and efforts behind what’s most likely, not as bound to safety as the certainty character) - If My Calculations Are Correct
Inaction (to allow a course of action by not interfering, or to not move out of harm’s way and create a blockade) - Brilliant, but Lazy, Lazy Bum, Retired Badass
---
### Author:  [@jhull](https://discuss.dramatica.com/u/jhull)
#### Post date: [October 30, 2017, 9:08pm UTC](https://discuss.dramatica.com/t/additional-examples-of-characteristics/1301/6 "2017-10-30T21:08:53Z")
It would be awesome to include these as “character examples” in a future version of Dramatica. Didn’t know everyone was already doing this 🙂
---
### Author:  [@MiggsEye](https://discuss.dramatica.com/u/MiggsEye)
#### Post date: [October 30, 2017, 11:20pm UTC](https://discuss.dramatica.com/t/additional-examples-of-characteristics/1301/7 "2017-10-30T23:20:16Z")
This IS fantastic stuff. It deals with a topic I’ve been wondering about for awhile and, in fact, I’ve been meaning to ask the question “How do people use the Characteristic portion of the Dramatica Software?”. The focus in the forums, Narrative First, and in Melanie’s articles and videos is so much on Storyform, there seems to be very little emphasis on how Dramatica can be used to develop Characters (in a major way). Of course, there are a few video explanations and demonstrations by Chris and Melanie. But, again, it’s not in much depth compared to the what’s been done on Storyforming, etc.
How do you all utilize the character development? What is your character development process using Dramatica?
---
### Author:  [@TerryVog](https://discuss.dramatica.com/u/TerryVog)
#### Post date: [November 1, 2017, 9:19am UTC](https://discuss.dramatica.com/t/additional-examples-of-characteristics/1301/9 "2017-11-01T09:19:17Z")
While I appreciate all the contributions, it is actually not what I intended. These are some excellent definitions, but I am actually looking for examples of characters with their Characteristics.
I’m trying to learn data science to be able to use machine learning. And I want to combine this with my love for Dramatica, using artificial intelligence to find correlations between personality types and Dramatica’s Characteristics. With these correlations, I can develop a tool to be used in conjunction with Dramatica, to help writers have a better understanding of the personality of their fictional characters. It can basically calculate which combination of personality types create the most conflict in your story.
Of course, I can assign personality types to each of the elements, and I already did, but that is just my own subjective view on the matter. It is much more helpful to have additional opinions of others. What personality types do they see in fictional characters? And how are they linked to Dramatica?
I found an excellent (but not too beautifully designed) site [http://mbtibase.com](http://mbtibase.com) as a source for the personality types of fictional characters. So the biggest bottleneck now is Dramatica’s Characteristics. Of all the 333 stories in the Analysis section on this site, only 5% of them are in the Examples folder and have a filled-in Characteristics pane. That is not much data to let the AI have a go at.
Do any of you have more examples of analyses with Characteristics? Even if someone has just 1 or 2 movie analyses with Characteristics assigned, it would be very helpful.
---
### Author:  [@kf27](https://discuss.dramatica.com/u/kf27)
#### Post date: [November 1, 2017, 12:44pm UTC](https://discuss.dramatica.com/t/additional-examples-of-characteristics/1301/10 "2017-11-01T12:44:44Z")
Star Wars characters’s dimensions (except purposes):
Motivation:
Luke - Protagonist (Pursue, Consider)
Empire - Antagonist (Prevent, Reconsideration)
Obi Wan - Guardian (Help, Conscience)
Dath - Contagonist (Hinder, Temptation)
RD2D2, C3PO - Sidekick (Supporrt, Faith)
Han - Skeptic (Oppose, Disbelief)
Chewbacca - Emotion (Uncontrolled, Feeling)
Leia - Reason (Controlled, Logic)
Methodology:
Luke - Passive (Inaction, Accepts)
Empire - Assertive (Proaction, Evaluates)
Obi Wan - Responsive (Reacts, Re-evaluates)
Dath - Peservative (Protection, Non-Acceptance)
RD2D2, - Risky (Possibilities, Production)
C3PO - Cautious (Probabilities, Reduction)
Han - Dogmatic (Actualities, Deduction)
Leia - Pragmatic (Potentialities, Induction)
"Certainly Obi Wan seems RESPONSIVE. He never attacks, just responds to attacks , such as the Cantina scene where he cuts off the creature’s arm after it had attacked Luke. But here the direct relationship breaks down. This time Obi is not balanced by Darth, but by the Empire which is the key ASSERTIVE Character in the story. This is exemplified in the Empire’s unprovoked attack on Leia’s home world of Alderan, and their efforts to track down and destroy the rebel base. Darth takes on a PRESERVATIVE approach, which works nicely with his charge to recover the stolen plans. Every step he takes is an attempt to get back to start. Even when he leads his fighters into the trench on the Death Star, he cautions his henchmen not to chase those who break off from the attack, but to stay on the leader.
Rounding out the Four Simple Action Methodologies, Luke fills the role of PASSIVE. Luke, Passive? Yep. When Uncle Owen tells Luke that he must stay on one more season, Luke argues, but does he accept it? When Obi tells Luke that he must go with him to Alderan, where does he end up? When the Cantina Bartender tells him the droids must stay outside, does he even argue?
Looking at the Decision Quad, Han reads very well as the DOGMATIC approach, which matches nicely with his role as Skeptic. Leia, on the other hand is clearly Pragmatic, adapting to new and unexpected situations as needed. Note the way Dogmatic Han screws up the rescue attempt in the detention block with his inability to adapt, compared to Leia blasting a hole in the corridor wall, manufacturing an escape route.
Interestingly, the joint Sidekick of R2D2 and C3PO is split by the Methodologies of RISKY and CAUTIOUS. R2D2 is always the one jumping into the fray, going out on a limb, trailblazing through blaster fire. In Contrast, C3PO doesn’t want to go into the escape pod, doesn’t want to go on R2′s “mission” to find Obi, and excels at hiding from battle whenever he gets the chance."
Evaluation:
Luke - INFORMATION (Proven, Test)
Empire - CALCULATION (Expectation, Theories)
Obi Wan - GUESSWORK (Unproven, Trust)
Dath - INTUITION (Determination, Hunch)
RD2D2, - Impact (Effects, Accurate)
Chewbacca - MEANS (Process, Unending)
Han - OUTCOME (Results,Ending)
Leia - INTENT (Cause, Non-accurate)
"Again, we can see subtle conflicts in techniques of Evaluation between Characters that are compatible at other levels. For the first time, we can see the tension that as an audience we feel between Darth and the Empire in the “Board Room” scene on the Death Star where Darth constricts the breathing of the general he is “bickering” with. The general says to Darth, “…your sorcerer ways have not helped you conjure up the missing plans…”, essentially arguing against Intuition.
Looking at Luke, we note that in his dinner table discussion with Uncle Owen he argues his point that he should be allowed to leave with Information: the new droids are working out, all his friends are at the academy, etc. Another example is the moment Luke bursts into Leia’s cell to release her. Rather than use any other technique, he describes the situation to her simply by imparting information: “I’m Luke Skywalker. I’m here to rescue you. I’m here with Ben Kenobi.”
Obi Wan, on the other hand, relies on Guesswork when the Millennium Falcon is chasing the lone imperial fighter after coming out of hyperspace. He sees the supposed moon, and guesses, “It’s a space station!”
Han is completely Outcome oriented, “I’m just in this for the reward, sister!”, and is thereby again in conflict with Leia as Intent: “If money is all you care about, then that’s what you’ll receive.”
Chewy can be seen to focus on Means, when he refuses to don the binders for Luke’s plan to rescue Leia.
C3PO is always evaluating impact: ” We’ll be sent to the spice mines of Kessel”, and, “I suggest a different strategy R2… Let the Wookie win.”
R2, as noted, does not represent a manner of evaluation. We can see by the feel of his Character that he is motivated and has a method, but he never evaluates anything for himself, you just point him and he goes.
Once again, since Star Wars is an action oriented story, the techniques of Evaluation were not as developed as Motivation and Method."
Purpose: ?
Archeotypes:
Protagonist - Goal (Actuality, Awareness)
Antagonist - Requirement (Ability, Knowledge)
Guardian - Consequence (Chaos, Inequity)
Contagonist - Cost (Change, Speculation)
Sidekick - Fulfillment (Self-Awareness, Perception)
Skeptic - Contentment (Order, Equity)
Emotion - Happiness (Desire, Thought)
Reason - Satisfaction (Projection, Inertia)
(\*\ ***Based on** [http://storymind.com/articles/page21.htm](http://storymind.com/articles/page21.htm))
---
### Author:  [@Prish](https://discuss.dramatica.com/u/Prish)
#### Post date: [November 1, 2017, 6:50pm UTC](https://discuss.dramatica.com/t/additional-examples-of-characteristics/1301/11 "2017-11-01T18:50:32Z")
We do need a WOW button. For some posts (current topic and examples, point made), the heart-like just doesn’t express the mind boggling aspect.
---
### Author:  [@TerryVog](https://discuss.dramatica.com/u/TerryVog)
#### Post date: [November 2, 2017, 2:49am UTC](https://discuss.dramatica.com/t/additional-examples-of-characteristics/1301/12 "2017-11-02T02:49:30Z")
At first, I thought: “He is responding by doing one of the few movies I already have.” But this is very insightful. Thank you.
More input is still very much appreciated.
Also, I noticed that the sequence of the elements change, dependent upon the story form, apparently. For example: Knowledge is always in the top left corner, but sometimes it has Order as it’s companion, while other times it has Acuality right next to it. Knowing Dramatica, this probably has its purpose and its links to the theory, but I’m not seeing yet why this happens and what I can learn from it.
---
### Author:  [@bobRaskoph](https://discuss.dramatica.com/u/bobRaskoph)
#### Post date: [November 2, 2017, 1:07pm UTC](https://discuss.dramatica.com/t/additional-examples-of-characteristics/1301/13 "2017-11-02T13:07:22Z")
The Placement is dependent on the Objective Story Domain.
If OS = Physics, Knowledge is next to Ability
If OS = Universe, Knowledge is next to Order
If OS = Mind, Knowledge is next to Actuality
If OS = Psychology, Knowledge is next to Inertia.
Take a look at [the chart](http://storymind.com/dramatica/downloads/structure_chart.pdf) and you’ll see.
---
### Author:  [@bobRaskoph](https://discuss.dramatica.com/u/bobRaskoph)
#### Post date: [November 2, 2017, 1:37pm UTC](https://discuss.dramatica.com/t/additional-examples-of-characteristics/1301/14 "2017-11-02T13:37:48Z")
I’ve been looking through the Dramatica Analysis pages and blogs for a few years now, and as far as I know, most people focus on the Story Forms to the exclusion of the Character Building stuff.
Apart from some mentions here and there on discuss, storymind and narrativefirst (and even then it’s mostly just problem, solution, focus, direction and/or crucial elements), you won’t find much about it. I assume that there simply isn’t enough reward for the time and effort required to somewhat-accurately determine these elements.
Additionally, there is the idea that these character elements are not “characteristics” as much as what the characters “represent” in relation to the goal / inequity from an “objective” perspective (explaining why Severus Snape could be the “Help” character).
[A quote from narrativefirst.com](https://narrativefirst.com/articles/the-crucial-element-to-telling-a-great-story):
[quote]And that’s when you need to realize that the character elements found in the Overall Story Throughline represent _facets of the Storymind_ as a whole—NOT individual character traits to be doled out as if at the start of a Dungeons & Dragons campaign.
(…)
Dramatica sees story as _an analogy to a single human mind trying to solving a problem_. Protagonist, Antagonist, Skeptic, Guardian, Sidekick—these characters stand in for aspects of the mind at work. The Protagonist represents our motivation for initiative, the Antagonist our motivation for reticence.
When building characters by dragging and dropping avatars in the Build Character window, the Author assigns facets of the mind at work to these individual players. Thinking individual traits describe these characters is inaccurate; rather _these characters represent individual traits of a single mind in the process of solving a problem_.[/quote]
Another quote:
> [@MC vs Protagonist](https://discuss.dramatica.com/t/mc-vs-protagonist/924/2):
>
> Look to the Story Goal. Once you know what that is, simply “tag” the characters in your story with Elements that refer to the Goal.
>
> For instance, a story about Earning the Admiration of the Scientific Community:
>
> George:
>
> Pursuit: As head of the project, George motivates everyone to push harder to earn the respect and admiration of the scientific community.
> Test: Never one to settle for anything less than perfect, George constantly challenges every idea and approach the team comes up with
> Perception: George could care less about how much they really deserve the admiration; as long as everyone perceives his team as worthy, he’s quite satisfied
> Acceptance: At heart, George is a people-pleaser, and will do anything, even if it mans cheat, to be accepted by his peers.
>
> You go ahead and do this for all your characters and always think of the Element in reference to the Story Goal. This will keep your story honest and consistent.
>
> Ignore the Archetypal Characters and the settings they suggest within the application. They do more harm than good as they confuse the way these Elements work in a story.
>
> For instance, you could assign a character as the “Skeptic” because they’re skeptical…even though they might fully support and believe in the Story Goal. You can’t just be a “skeptic” to anything when it comes to artfully crafting a narrative. It needs to have purpose, and the purpose of the Overall Story elements is to show the relative appropriateness or inappropriateness of these elements in the efforts to resolve the story’s central inequity.
My personal grievances with Myer-Briggs and such aside, the problem is that they try to determine a static description of someone’s personality while the character elements of Dramatica are about characters’ relation to the story goal/inequity. Meaning, they could change from story to story. See Han Solo in Star Wars IV.
---
### Author:  [@kf27](https://discuss.dramatica.com/u/kf27)
#### Post date: [November 2, 2017, 5:56pm UTC](https://discuss.dramatica.com/t/additional-examples-of-characteristics/1301/15 "2017-11-02T17:56:47Z")
[quote=“bobRaskoph, post:14, topic:1301”]
explaining why Severus Snape could be the “Help” character[/quote]
Isn’t he a “Hinder” in the first six book? Example in the Philosopher’s Stone, he bullies Neville and Harry, and he hinders Quirrell’s evil machinations… I mean, he is a good guy, and he undermines the bad guy’s efforts at the first place.
(Sorry for any spelling mistakes.English is not my native language. 🙂 )
---
### Author:  [@bobRaskoph](https://discuss.dramatica.com/u/bobRaskoph)
#### Post date: [November 2, 2017, 7:28pm UTC](https://discuss.dramatica.com/t/additional-examples-of-characteristics/1301/16 "2017-11-02T19:28:20Z")
> [@Creating a Fake-Opponent Ally (or) Fake-Ally Opponent](https://discuss.dramatica.com/t/creating-a-fake-opponent-ally-or-fake-ally-opponent/1026/17):
>
> The first is that the beauty of all well-told stories is that they emerge as a whole – so the story-telling and the meaning seem to be intertwined. That in certain ways is why we refer to things as “one story” – it seems like one thing. So, sure, any objective aspect of the meaning is tied to some subjective story-telling construct.
>
> The second answer is, no. Let’s just say that Snape embodies “Help” in the Harry Potter series. When he is presented as trying to kill Potter by knocking him off his broom at a Quiddich match, and then is later revealed to have been helping him all along (by holding at bay the thing that was actually trying to kill him) – there is in this instance a reversal. He’s bad, whoops no, he’s good!
>
> But that is entirely subjective. In fact, objectively he was helping the entire time. Our perspective as a reader is not relevant to this: JK Rowling knew he was helping.
(Also, just from one non-native speaker to another: you don’t need to apologize for this kind of thing)
---
### Author:  [@MWollaeger](https://discuss.dramatica.com/u/MWollaeger)
#### Post date: [November 2, 2017, 9:47pm UTC](https://discuss.dramatica.com/t/additional-examples-of-characteristics/1301/17 "2017-11-02T21:47:50Z")
@Gernot @kf27 – really good stuff.
Thanks for sharing it.
---
### Author:  [@TerryVog](https://discuss.dramatica.com/u/TerryVog)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2017, 6:05am UTC](https://discuss.dramatica.com/t/additional-examples-of-characteristics/1301/18 "2017-11-03T06:05:41Z")
> [@bobRaskoph](#):
>
> My personal grievances with Myer-Briggs and such aside, the problem is that they try to determine a static description of someone’s personality while the character elements of Dramatica are about characters’ relation to the story goal/inequity. Meaning, they could change from story to story. See Han Solo in Star Wars IV.
Good point. Maybe there is no correlation between the characteristics and personality types. But if characters resemble real humans, they tend to run into similar kinds of conflicts all the time. So I believe there is some kind of correlation and I want to find it.
I agree that the MBTI system has its problems, but [mbtibase.com](http://mbtibase.com) often also provides an enneagram score. The enneagram is about as bad as MBTI, but with both faulty scores, I can do an intelligent guess what the MOTIV score would be. MOTIV is one of the most scientific approaches there is.
I have to admit that the data I have is quite messy at best. That is why I want to use AI. Machine learning is great when trying to find patterns when humans just see noise.
---
### Author:  [@Gernot](https://discuss.dramatica.com/u/Gernot)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2017, 7:39am UTC](https://discuss.dramatica.com/t/additional-examples-of-characteristics/1301/19 "2017-11-03T07:39:32Z")
> [@TerryVog](#):
>
> While I appreciate all the contributions, it is actually not what I intended. These are some excellent definitions, but I am actually looking for examples of characters with their Characteristics.
Hi Terry, I am not sure if I am totally off here, but assuming you “only” want to use it for writing purpose for me it works without Ai. I have build my own mbti/enneagramm database with popular people and with people I know from my network. At the moment I have 350+ characters, not a big peer group, but always good to get a go.
The data in my database is just “hand picked” from many different sources in the internet.
The best I could find for building character relationships are mbtis cognitive function and relationship pairs: [Relationship Pairs: what the hell does this mean? | Personality Cafe](http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/68580-relationship-pairs-what-hell-does-mean.html)
Here is en example for a ESTJ (8,3,1,6) character
Basically it works like that: I start with my MC who I might setup as an ESTJ then I use the above table to get a start from there.
But this is just a starting point, sooner or later I run all different directions. The more I write I tend to forget the mbti/enneagramm stuff altogether.
In my experience learning character from the Enneagramm is the better choice than mbti. The Enneagramm does provide good tools to learn and understand how other people think. At least for me it gives me always a good start imagining my different characters
Here is my mapping I do with the same database: Dramatica / mbti / big 5 .. based on our discussion [The Enneagram, MBTI and Dramatica - theory - Dramatica](http://discuss.dramatica.com/t/the-enneagram-mbti-and-dramatica/309) in 2015
---
### Author:  [@kf27](https://discuss.dramatica.com/u/kf27)
#### Post date: [June 21, 2018, 9:31pm UTC](https://discuss.dramatica.com/t/additional-examples-of-characteristics/1301/21 "2018-06-21T21:31:20Z")
> [@bobRaskoph](#):
>
> The first is that the beauty of all well-told stories is that they emerge as a whole – so the story-telling and the meaning seem to be intertwined. That in certain ways is why we refer to things as “one story” – it seems like one thing. So, sure, any objective aspect of the meaning is tied to some subjective story-telling construct.
>
> The second answer is, no. Let’s just say that Snape embodies “Help” in the Harry Potter series. When he is presented as trying to kill Potter by knocking him off his broom at a Quiddich match, and then is later revealed to have been helping him all along (by holding at bay the thing that was actually trying to kill him) – there is in this instance a reversal. He’s bad, whoops no, he’s good!
>
> But that is entirely subjective. In fact, objectively he was helping the entire time. Our perspective as a reader is not relevant to this: JK Rowling knew he was helping.
Yesterday I rewatched the first two HP movies, and thiked about this question. Honestly, I still see him as a Hinder character. Is it possible that his motivation is Hinder(=he continously bullies Harry and Neville), AND his methodology is Protection(=he protects Harry)? (Again, sorry for my spelli… I mean… 😊)
---
### Author:  [@Niandra](https://discuss.dramatica.com/u/Niandra)
#### Post date: [June 29, 2018, 4:30am UTC](https://discuss.dramatica.com/t/additional-examples-of-characteristics/1301/22 "2018-06-29T04:30:20Z")
Have you read this article: [https://narrativefirst.com/analysis/the-harry-potter-series](https://narrativefirst.com/analysis/the-harry-potter-series)
I was quite unhappy when I read that the Harry Potter stories where just tales until I found that article and the one it links to. I can’t find/remember where I read about Snape=Help though 😓