New System of Typing?

[Max]

Haha, I don't know anything about D&D, I just guessed based on what seemed most fitting. I'm probably more neutral on that scale.

 

[Iriohm]

Originally Posted by Antisocial one

Axis two is the axis of Body vs. Spirit. Kind of like Sensor vs. Feeler, but also kind of like Extraversion vs. Introversion.

Can you explain this one a little bit ?

Physicals spend their time in the physical world, and would thus be both more sensory and more extraverted than Spirituals. Introverts aren't necessarily anti-social; company just drains them. Physically-there company. Who's to say they would retain that were they to meet in a spiritual world, one devoid of physicality...such as these forums.

Originally Posted by GemPOPGem
I'm curious as to weather this would be flexible rather than fixed. My first thought was of reformed characters...e.g
Person who has violent tendencies, mugs people and beats them up, aggravated burgulary etc...goes to jail many times then has a turning point and puts their experience into working with young offenders to get them on the right (good) path.

I'm also wondering what this would be based upon, some devience can be positive. And morally what would be the standpoint, religious/societal?

Very much so. Personality type should always be flexible, especial when it involves moral standing. As for the second bit, I'm thinking the destruction or protection of general innocence is a good method of judging good and evil; kind of a hallmark actually.

Originally Posted by GemPOPGem
Quick question: You said that one of the axes was Body vs. Mind? And then you used as an example "Chaotic-Whatever Physical Thinker?" So... since you used the word "body" in one place and "physical" in the other, what word are you going to replace "mental" with? I ask because I <3 specifics.

I like that this new system doesn't correlate exactly with MBTI (proven by Max's fun with being evil compared to my always - and I mean ALWAYS - being Lawful Good in D&D, no matter how I try to be Lawful Neutral.) I guess that makes me a "Lawful-Good Physical Thinker" (LGPT).

This is pretty cool. Are you going to write out some type descriptions???

This is a work in progress; I plan on changing all the names eventually. Probably something simple like "Thinker", which sums it up...just so well.
In answer to the next bits, I'm glad that you like my system, and I'm not sure. Possibly. Later. I'm still working out the general setup.

Originally Posted by LeafAndSky
Thanks. So, from that page, it's this idea:

"The moral axis has three positions: good, neutral and evil. Good characters generally care about the welfare of others. Neutral people generally care about their own welfare. Evil people generally seek to harm the others' welfare."

There seem to be aspects of good/evil in many of the questions. Which ones would you say are measuring that?

That's the general idea, yes. As I said above, "Good" involves the protection of innocence, "Evil" involves the destruction of innocence, and "Neutral" goes neither way. I define innocence as generally anything untouched by evil, be it neutral, or good. Read the Wikipedia page on it.

Also, Chaos and Law would not be taken in quite the same sense as in D&D, but would be as close to Perception and Judging as to their original definition. Lawfulness, for instance, wouldn't be so much an unwillingness to break the rules as a tendency to approach things in a structured manner.

 

[LeafAndSky]

That's the general idea, yes. As I said above, "Good" involves the protection of innocence, "Evil" involves the destruction of innocence, and "Neutral" goes neither way. I define innocence as generally anything untouched by evil, be it neutral, or good. Read the Wikipedia page on it.

Creating systems can be fun. But the good/evil axis caught my attention because the issue of what's good and what's evil is slippery. A person whose brain is structured on some continuum to be considered a sociopath, for example, will act in ways that others consider evil but that he or she considers good. In that case, you could say that the sociopath himself is innocent, i.e., "untouched by evil." Well, whatever, it's a sub-point. Enjoy the system-in-progress.

 

[Iriohm]

RE: LeafAndSky

Yeah, that's another thing: We aren't individuals; we're miniature civilizations. There are so many different facets of most peoples personalities that we might as well be. Like most other systems, we must work based on what the majority says, but still...how can you type someone as anything with that knowledge? Or, more importantly, how can you justify condemning them? Everyone has a dark side; the trick is to turn that side inward (Good), or towards the dark side of others (Neutral).