Monday, June 21, 2021


 I recently listened to Brene Brown. To be honest, I disagree with some of what she had to say, but I liked her worksheet.

The idea that most people have two values or traits that drive them is pretty spot on. I've been using a variant of that as a replacement for alignment in some games.

But I was reflecting on that recently. I'd bet that my wife is right when she says my personal motivating values are curiosity and loyalty.

Her values are diligence and kindness. I was reflecting on that as I thought about the three things I used to tell my kids.

Be kind, work hard, tell the truth.

It hit me that while I'm motivated by curiosity and loyalty, I value kindness and diligence, if that makes sense. And it is no surprise that the two I value the most are the two that define my wife.

It has been giving me thought.

For game (and conflict resolution -- see purposes, I have been defining values in the trait pairs.


  1. Chaste.......  /.....Lustful
  2. Energetic.... /.....Lazy
  3. Forgiving.... /.....Vengeful
  4. Generous... /.....Selfish
  5. Honest......  /.....Deceitful
  6. Just.........    /.....Arbitrary
  7. Merciful....   /.....Cruel
  8. Modest....... /.....Proud
  9. Pious........   /.....Worldly
  10. Prudent.....  /.....Reckless
  11. Temperate  /.....Indulgent
  12. Reliable....   /.....Feckless
  13. Trusting....  /.....Suspicious
  14. Valorous...  /.....Cowardly

But, in Mistworld, I really have positive versions and twisted or malfunctioning versions.

Eg.  Brave .... / .... Cautious would be the real replacement for 14, above, with;

   Foolhardy .../ .... Cowardly as the twisted versions.  That allows me to recognize that there is a positive form of valorous and a negative form, a positive form of cautious and a cowardly form.  It perhaps means that the list needs some modification (e.g. Prudent/Reckless overlaps with Foolhardy/Cowardly).  

I've been using the system by having players pick five of these (out of 28) to define their characters, with one that is more significant than the others.  I probably need to rethink the list somewhat and work out each of the pairs into sets of two pairs (the positive and the negative versions).

But I'm rethinking it all.


  1. is another approach to the same thing.

  2. and