Can a story have 2 sets of the Archetypes Sidekick and Skeptic?

For the sake of structure, I find it necessary for not only my Protagonist (MC) to have the advantage of the archetypes sidekick and skeptic in his camp, but the antagonist to have these two archetypes as well. I am a novice writer and am wondering can I do this with my science fiction novel?

So the short answer is yes. Say, for example, every starship needs an analyst to plot courses and calculate probabilities and whatnot. In that case, both sides would need one of these characters, even though they’re both the Reason character archetype. In a non-scifi example, a story about several characters competing for the same prize might all have the Pursue trait.

The best way for you to differentiate these characters is to give them other traits that complicate their archetype. So if you have two Support characters, one might be more oriented around Control, while the other might be more Uncontrolled. Or perhaps one is Supportive in order to maintain Inertia, while another is Supportive to foster Change.

Another way is to have one Sidekick character be more focused on the Support aspect, while the other is more focused on the Faith aspect. Support is more of an external, action-based Sidekicking, while Faith is more internal, decision-based.

1 Like

Wow, thank you so much, that is a well seasoned, quite genius answer. I have a world of studying to do. You sound smarter than the two that created Dramatica theory and software, and I bet you know it.
Thank you again. :performing_arts:

Lol! I wouldn’t go that far. (And I’m not just saying that because those two lurk here on the forum. :wink:) I’m just trying to synthesize my knowledge of Dramatica with other narrative theories I’ve picked up along the way, as well as play with the tools I’ve been given in novel ways. I want my understanding of Dramatica’s concepts to be useful to me, and everyone finds use in different ways.

But if you have more questions, I or somebody else would be happy to answer them! :smiley:


Your right again and thorough too. Will do. :smiley: