This material is for informational and educational purposes only and is not medical, psychological, or psychotherapeutic advice. If you are experiencing an acute psychological condition or need professional support, please contact a doctor, psychologist, psychotherapist, or crisis service.
Olena tells a colleague she cannot finish her report in time. He immediately takes over part of the work: “Don’t worry, I’ll do everything.” An hour later, his own task is falling behind. He becomes angry: “Because of you I’m staying late again.” Olena replies, “I didn’t ask you to do it all for me.” A conversation that began with sympathy ends in mutual complaints.
This fictional situation can be examined through the Karpman Drama Triangle, a model of changing positions in an interaction. It helps trace what people say and do rather than establish their personalities. Being involved in a conflict does not imply equal power, equal harm or equal responsibility.
AI-generated illustration. A fictional work conversation; the people shown do not represent permanent roles or diagnoses.
What Karpman proposed
In his 1968 paper Fairy Tales and Script Drama Analysis, Stephen Karpman described three positions: Victim, Rescuer and Persecutor. His focus included transitions between them and changes of setting and time in a story. This is a theoretical transactional-analysis framework, not experimental proof that fairy tales programme a child’s future.
For practical discussion, the names describe actions: helplessness without an available personal step, help that takes over someone else’s responsibility, and pressure or accusation. An ordinary request for help does not make someone a “Victim”; agreed support is not automatically “rescuing”; disagreement or refusal is not persecution.
Where the position changes
In our example Olena reports difficulty without making a specific request. Her colleague judges the situation as something he must immediately fix himself. Sympathy and anxiety prompt him to take on work without clarifying its extent or his own capacity. Initially he feels relief: a solution has been found and he is useful.
When there is not enough time for his own work, irritation and hurt arise. He shifts from helping to accusing, while Olena becomes defensive. In this loop, an unagreed decision becomes the basis for a complaint against someone else. The useful question is not “who is permanently the Rescuer?” but “when did I take on this commitment, and what did I expect in return?”
The actual cause of the delay also needs attention. If everyone has too much work, changing tone is not enough: the workload needs addressing. The article on control helps distinguish personal action, agreement and another person’s responsibility.
Fairy tales and scripts as material for reflection
Karpman used familiar tales as illustrations and included clinical examples. This does not establish a method for predicting adult destiny from a favourite childhood story. His later paper Script Drama Analysis II continues the development of script theory.
“What ending am I expecting now?” can help reveal a familiar assumption. But the answer needs checking against current facts. Expecting refusal does not establish refusal; wanting to help does not mean the other person has agreed to the proposed approach.
The Victim role does not erase actual harm
When someone is threatened, humiliated or subjected to violence, do not begin by searching for their “benefit from the role”. A position in a model does not establish a harmed person’s motives or transfer responsibility for someone else’s actions onto them. Safety, support and the possibility of ending unsafe contact come first.
Likewise, the right to refuse does not make someone a Persecutor. “I can’t take on your report” and “You’re useless; you always ruin everything” have different content and consequences. The model is useful while it helps distinguish them, not while it erases differences under three labels.
Changing the conversation
Olena could make a specific request: “I need another view of the calculations. Do you have twenty minutes before three?” Her colleague checks capacity: “I can review one section, but I can’t take over the report.” If he cannot help, they seek another option or discuss the deadline with a manager.
If resentment has already arisen, he can return to his own decision: “I took on more than I could manage without agreeing on the scope. I can finish only this part now.” This does not guarantee agreement, but makes the subject of discussion visible. One well-chosen sentence cannot undo every consequence.
A short note after conflict
In the online diary or a notebook, record: what happened; how I interpreted it; what I felt; what I did; what I expected from the other person; what we actually agreed. Then choose one action to clarify a boundary or repair an agreement. Needing help does not require self-blame.
The article on analysing a specific interaction provides a broader context. Bring a specific request, room for refusal and your own boundary action to the next conversation. The MriyaRun catalogue offers writing formats; they do not assign roles on a person’s behalf or replace professional support.