• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

MMORPG's (WoW, Guild Wars, etc.) and MBTI types

Dark Razor

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
271
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8w7
I never played Wow, though I still occasionally play Guild Wars, there my main character was a Necromancer, who stands in the back row and basically wtfpwns anything, if played right, and my other characters are a sneaky assassin and a warrior. I also have a monk and a mesmer but I dont enjoy plaing them very much.
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
And you can thank me for one of our ealier conversations on intpc for the argument about the J/C correlation :D So my own argument is biting me in the butt. Well, yes, it's true. My point precisely is that it is a tendency.

AG, is that you? I'm not really too stuck on the "not strongly correlated" bit, I'm stuck on the redefining of what is measured.

Hence, if anything, there are reasons to believe that J's will be slightly biased towards being moral compared to P's.

If anything, J's will be biased towards being fixed on their own view of morality. Ps are called deviant because they deviate, so sure... Js will be biased towards being more "moral" than P's. The problem are the "'s around moral.

Depending on the underlying philosophy, the part that Te plays may be more or less important. Kant's view on ethics functions on principles and is a very good example of Te ethics. That is, acting morally not because of any feeling for your neighbor, but for a higher standpoint of "justice".

Ultimately, laws depend on a conception of morality.

Depends on the definition of law. Law can also be define from force, a sociological point of view... maybe even as a noun to refer to authoritive power. In that sense, it really is about order and control.

Well, my point is precisely that Extraverted Thinking is this magic that makes them fair. Of course, unhealthy Dominant Te's may have twisted laws, principles and be in contradiction with themselves. However, healthy Dominant Te's will be by far (and I would like to really insist on this point) the most ethical, fair and just of people.

Repeating it doesn't make it true. The only thing that comes from this is that they are consistent, which they certainly are.

I completely disagree with you. They are certainly not amoral. That is best left for INTPs. They are the ones who tend to be amoral. If anything, ENTJ's will be either moral or immoral. I would contend that this depends on their level of health.

No, it depends on what they believe is moral, nothing else. I can depend on them to act within their nature. The only case for them being inherently moral is if that nature that makes them moral, rather than their beliefs that guide their actions.

R&H have correlated Type 1 with Extraverted Thinking. Here's what they say about the healthy levels:

I won't even check this... but is that the enneagram?! :huh:

Hey, I didn't realize I was *so* influential with INTP's to the point where they copy my style :D

Actually, I was pointing out the methodology involved in each process... You automatically see me as someone as being wounded when they don't agree with you. My response was to point out that this is an example of Te in action; your way is the right way and something is wrong with everyone else. This makes it inherently unstable.

In short, you like being aggressive, you like forcing your view and you like conflict. It doesn't matter if you are correct; that's the subjective component. Your very nature makes you act a certain way, think and believe a certain way... but that doesn't make you right, no more than it makes you moral.

Who on earth wants to be friends with "amoral" people? And how would the ENTJ's you described be "friends"? Friendship is about trust and an important part of that is knowing that your friends have ethics!

That's silly. I'm friends with people who make good friends. The character traits have no moral basis. I prefer Js in my life because they balance my P, but at the same time, most of my long term friends are Ps because they remain flexible. End point is that I'd rather be friends with a good ESFJ than a bad INTP (and recent life has certainly told me why!). I don't value consistency *that* much that I'd want to be with an ENTJ. They'd end up being domineering at the wrong time and I'd blow up... extreme I leaves me a bit... uhhh... sensitive to personal space.

I'm not saying ENTJs are bad or good, I'm saying they are just people. There is nothing so different about them that makes more than that.

---

Anyway, back on the OT -

I probably won't rethink the preferences you list until someone does a study on it. I wouldn't be surprised that is a slight bias towards playing styles, but I am highly doubtful of class representation (ie: Paladins = background characters <> ENTJs...)
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
Oh yah! Guildwars;

Me: Ranger/Ele (... so I was new). Later, Ele/Me.
GF (INTJ): Monk/Me, Necro/ranger

Eventually we played most of the classes a bit, but we didn't get the expansions.
 

Zergling

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,377
MBTI Type
ExTJ
Guild wars was the main thing I played for most of the last couple of years. (Recently I stopped completely, I think out of either boredom or a desire to do something different.) I mostly do world of warcraft now.


I always start something of all the classes and play them a little bit. In general, I prefer classes that can either do a lot of different things, or do things in unusual ways.

In guild wars, I tended to play my warrior, mesmer, and monk less than the other classes (mesmer because she wasn't very powerful, monk and warrior were more boring). I started several dervishes, rangers, paragons, and necromancers to cover all those classes spells (Elementalist just shifted armor to cover the different spell types).

In world of warcraft, I currently am playing 6 classes. I like my Druid, Shaman, and Paladin for their ability to do several different things (The healing helps in groups also), my warlock and hunter are fun since the pets add extra things to control and watch out for, making them more fun. My Rogue was started as a money making character that played differently than the other classes I was playing.
 

sdalek

New member
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
298
MBTI Type
ISFJ
Never played WoW but I used to play D&D and AD&D v1 rules. I used to alternate between Fighters, Rangers, Thieves, Magic-Users and Monks. It always seemed to me that the Fighters and Rangers had the coolest toys, Thieves and Monks were good at sneaking around, and Magic-Users could be the most creative with their spells.
 

Maverick

New member
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
880
MBTI Type
ENTJ
AG, is that you? I'm not really too stuck on the "not strongly correlated" bit, I'm stuck on the redefining of what is measured.

OK.

Repeating it doesn't make it true. The only thing that comes from this is that they are consistent, which they certainly are.

I disagree and it seems to me that you ado not want to take into consideration the definition of Extraverted Thinking.

Actually, I was pointing out the methodology involved in each process... You automatically see me as someone as being wounded when they don't agree with you. My response was to point out that this is an example of Te in action; your way is the right way and something is wrong with everyone else. This makes it inherently unstable.

I don't understand your point and do not automatically see you as a person that is wounded. I am asking you an open question because I want to understand why your conceptions of ENTJs are so different than mine. As to your remark about Te, I find it unfair since it is one that can be easily made about any Thinking function. I have the impression that you are not objective in your assessment of Te and are viewing it in an overly negative light. I would like to understand why this is the case and what reasons are bringing you to your opinion.

In short, you like being aggressive, you like forcing your view and you like conflict. It doesn't matter if you are correct; that's the subjective component. Your very nature makes you act a certain way, think and believe a certain way... but that doesn't make you right, no more than it makes you moral.

I'm puzzled by this comment. On one hand, you state that you have not been wounded, on the other you use overly negative adjectives to describe an entire personality type. I don't enjoy being aggressive, forcing my views and conflict. That is wrong. I enjoy being assertive, stating my views and standing up for my rights. I think your descriptors paint an unnecessarily bad picture of ENTJ's. I also believe that it is unfortunate, as it seems to defeat the purpose of type to hold such views. Indeed, one of the goals of the MBTI seems to be to accept other people's differences and communicate more easily with them. I think you are holding negative stereotypes, i.e. prejudices, against ENTJ's. Again, I inquire: why is this so? I think that your assessments are not objective and hypothesize that one plausible and likely explanation for this is that they may be coming more from your own feelings about ENTJ's in relation to you.

I'm friends with people who make good friends.

The point is precisely that good friends are moral. I think being a reliable, dependable and honest person are traits of a good friend and are a demonstration of personal morality. I also disagree about your statement that character traits have no moral basis. For example, psychopathy, characterized by low morality among others, is related to Extraversion, Low Openness, Low Conscientiousness and High Neuroticism.

I probably won't rethink the preferences you list until someone does a study on it. I wouldn't be surprised that is a slight bias towards playing styles, but I am highly doubtful of class representation (ie: Paladins = background characters <> ENTJs...)

Well, I believe that people's personality will make them attracted more towards certain classes than others. I make the hypothesis that there will be a significant difference between the expected percent of ENTJ's randomly distributed throughout all classes and the observed percent of ENTJ's playing the Paladin class. Considering 9 classes, the expected percent is slightly more than 11%. That is, if there is absolutely no relationship between type and class, we would expect 11% of ENTJ's to choose the Paladin class. I predict that more than 25% of ENTJ's playing WoW will choose the Paladin class.
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
I disagree and it seems to me that you ado not want to take into consideration the definition of Extraverted Thinking.

Well, find me a version of Te that says that everything they do is "moral", and then we can talk about that. Ordering the world according to what they think is right, which is what Te is, does not make it "moral".

I don't understand your point and do not automatically see you as a person that is wounded. I am asking you an open question because I want to understand why your conceptions of ENTJs are so different than mine. As to your remark about Te, I find it unfair since it is one that can be easily made about any Thinking function. I have the impression that you are not objective in your assessment of Te and are viewing it in an overly negative light. I would like to understand why this is the case and what reasons are bringing you to your opinion.

No, I am being objective. Te wants to order the world around them. They want to control it, make sense of it, organise it. Those are non-value judgments. The value judgment, the subjective component, is calling it moral.

I'm puzzled by this comment. On one hand, you state that you have not been wounded, on the other you use overly negative adjectives to describe an entire personality type.

I'm struggling for words.

I don't enjoy being aggressive, forcing my views and conflict. That is wrong. I enjoy being assertive, stating my views and standing up for my rights.

Perhaps from your perspective that is all you believe you are doing. However, you engage in conflict willingly, you seek it rather than let it come to you. Even in cases like this, online, you do so. You post judgments and enjoy the dispute. One thing I have seen with ENTJs is that they will rarely seek closure in an argument until they are satisfied with the argument itself.

I don't get that among friends, unless it's a friendly dispute... and I don't get it at work when a project is underway... but they do it as entertainment all the time.

I think your descriptors paint an unnecessarily bad picture of ENTJ's. I also believe that it is unfortunate, as it seems to defeat the purpose of type to hold such views.

Yet you'll attach moral views onto type? (In effect, you are saying that ExTJs are the most moral, down the chain, where IxFPs are the least moral. later on you'll say that ESTPs (N+) are also immoral).

Type is value free, in theory. ENTJs do have the traits that I have mentioned - there main threats to their health is to control and dominate others away from them, leaving them alone. Healthy ENTJs become less Te. Otherwise the most moral of all would be unbalanced Te, where they invade ever part of life to force you to be moral (again, assuming that morality = telling others what is moral, creating moral systems, regardless of their content).

Indeed, one of the goals of the MBTI seems to be to accept other people's differences and communicate more easily with them. I think you are holding negative stereotypes, i.e. prejudices, against ENTJ's. Again, I inquire: why is this so? I think that your assessments are not objective and hypothesize that one plausible and likely explanation for this is that they may be coming more from your own feelings about ENTJ's in relation to you.

Since I have positive feeligns towards ENTJs, this would be false. You are merely seeing one side because of this dispute. I would do so equally with any type, including my own.

The point is precisely that good friends are moral.

Good friends are made up of all sorts of traits. My ISFP friend is good because he is there when I need him and he's fun to be around. Even if he isn't always dependable. My INTJ friend and GF are great because they respect my space more, but are always there when I need them... even if I struggle with visionary problems. And ENTJs can be great friends, even when they irritate me with their dominant views.

Good friends are good friends. Health level dominates all other character traits. What makes them so is personal. It depends what I need in my own life. I do not need ExTJs for the moral component; I already have my compass. And when it comes to talking moral philsophy or ethics, they lag significantly behind NPs.

I think being a reliable, dependable and honest person are traits of a good friend and are a demonstration of personal morality.

That is your opinion. My judgments on my friends are a bit more open ended. I seek people for who they are.

I also disagree about your statement that character traits have no moral basis. For example, psychopathy, characterized by low morality among others, is related to Extraversion, Low Openness, Low Conscientiousness and High Neuroticism.

Traits do correlate to behaviour. If we were arguing over what behaviours ENTJs have, this wouldn't be so involved. The moral judgment is your own and does not belong in type theory.

Well, I believe that people's personality will make them attracted more towards certain classes than others. I make the hypothesis that there will be a significant difference between the expected percent of ENTJ's randomly distributed throughout all classes and the observed percent of ENTJ's playing the Paladin class. Considering 9 classes, the expected percent is slightly more than 11%. That is, if there is absolutely no relationship between type and class, we would expect 11% of ENTJ's to choose the Paladin class. I predict that more than 25% of ENTJ's playing WoW will choose the Paladin class.

I'd be interested in seeing these stats. Even if this were so, I'd be more interested in an experiment that change the playing style of paladins (ie: making them mages) and seeing if ENTJs chose them based upon style or backstory.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
You realize this informal experiment really only has teeth if you're allowed to have only one WoW character and so have to prioritize which one you choose?

The possibility of having alts really does make it difficult to determine what one type "favors" -- especially if they're P's, who I would guess to be even more altaholic than J's.
 

Maverick

New member
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
880
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Well, find me a version of Te that says that everything they do is "moral", and then we can talk about that. Ordering the world according to what they think is right, which is what Te is, does not make it "moral".

I don't think that everything they do would be moral according to universal standards. I think that they try to be moral and that they live their lives according to strong principles. In my view, they will only be moral if in a healthy state.

Here is an excerpt of Jung's original demonstration of Extraverted Thinking:

This type of man elevates objective reality, or an objectively oriented intellectual formula, into the ruling principle not only for himself but for his whole environment. By this formula good and evil are measured, and beauty and ugliness determined. Everything that agrees with this formula is right, everything that contradicts it is wrong.... Because this formula seems to embody the entire meaning of life, it is made into a universal law which must be put into effect everywhere all the time, both individually and collectively. Just as the extroverted thinking type subordinates himself to his formula, so, for their own good, everybody round him must obey it too, for whoever refuses to obey it is wrong—he is resisting the universal law, and is therefore unreasonable, immoral, and without a conscience. His moral code forbids him to tolerate exceptions; his ideal must under all circumstances be realized.... This is not from any great love of his neighbor, but from the higher standpoint of justice and truth.... 'Oughts' and 'musts' bulk large in this programme. If the formula is broad enough, this type may play a very useful role in social life as a reformer or public prosecutor or purifier of conscience....

No, I am being objective. Te wants to order the world around them. They want to control it, make sense of it, organise it. Those are non-value judgments. The value judgment, the subjective component, is calling it moral.

I don't think it is a value judgment to call them moral. Indeed, there are several types of morality. In no way am I saying their morality is necessarily "good". The point is that they will have one. Wether or not other people agree that it is moral is a philosophical debate.

I'm struggling for words.

I do not know what to answer to this comment. I have the impression you dodged my point.

Perhaps from your perspective that is all you believe you are doing. However, you engage in conflict willingly, you seek it rather than let it come to you. Even in cases like this, online, you do so. You post judgments and enjoy the dispute. One thing I have seen with ENTJs is that they will rarely seek closure in an argument until they are satisfied with the argument itself.

This is your opinion and you are of course entitled to it. Personally, I don't think ENTJ's seek conflict. I think I could argue also that from your perspective, that is what ENTJ's are doing. This is something related to your own personality and perception of things. However, being an ENTJ myself and knowing several ENTJ's personally, I can assure you that conflict is not seeked for itself in most cases. I would agree that unhealthy ENTJ's seek conflict but I don't think that healthy ones do. It is not the dispute I am enjoying. It is an intellectual exchange. We could have had opinions that were similar, and had no conflict, and I would have enjoyed the exchange just as much. Your last point is true, precisely because until there is nothing more to learn, the discussion is worth it. I don't want to seek closure because there is still more to learn.

I don't get that among friends, unless it's a friendly dispute... and I don't get it at work when a project is underway... but they do it as entertainment all the time.

Well, I can understand simply because I think that intellectual exchanges such as this one may be relaxing and enjoyable but may not be entirely practical.

Yet you'll attach moral views onto type? (In effect, you are saying that ExTJs are the most moral, down the chain, where IxFPs are the least moral. later on you'll say that ESTPs (N+) are also immoral).

I am stating that ExTJ's are attracted to a specific type of morality such as the one explained by Jung. That is, acting good not out of good feelings for people, but according to principles. To bring this back to WoW, this is very similar to what a Paladin does.

Type is value free, in theory. ENTJs do have the traits that I have mentioned - there main threats to their health is to control and dominate others away from them, leaving them alone. Healthy ENTJs become less Te. Otherwise the most moral of all would be unbalanced Te, where they invade ever part of life to force you to be moral (again, assuming that morality = telling others what is moral, creating moral systems, regardless of their content).

I don't think healthy ENTJ's become less Te. Again, why would being more Te be a problem? It seems to me you are attaching a value judgment to Te, implying that less Te is healthy and more Te is less healthy. I don't agree that the most moral of all would be unhealthy Te. The most dogmatic of all would be. But the healthy one would use Te in constructive ways that genuinely benefit others - not to impose things against their will.

Since I have positive feeligns towards ENTJs, this would be false. You are merely seeing one side because of this dispute. I would do so equally with any type, including my own.

I have no other choice but to believe you, since it would be difficult for me to prove that you think one thing and not the other.

Good friends are made up of all sorts of traits. My ISFP friend is good because he is there when I need him and he's fun to be around. Even if he isn't always dependable. My INTJ friend and GF are great because they respect my space more, but are always there when I need them... even if I struggle with visionary problems. And ENTJs can be great friends, even when they irritate me with their dominant views.

I would like to phrase my point differently. Would you want to be friends with someone that lied, betrayed you, used you or did harmful things to you? Well such a person is someone that I would not describe as moral. I think that few people would like to have as a friend someone who is truly not moral.

Good friends are good friends. Health level dominates all other character traits. What makes them so is personal. It depends what I need in my own life. I do not need ExTJs for the moral component; I already have my compass. And when it comes to talking moral philsophy or ethics, they lag significantly behind NPs.

Your statement is surprising. What makes you think that it is the case? What evidence is there of this? I would postulate that NTJ's are especially good at talking about moral philosophy, seeing that both ENTJ's and INTJ's have Extraverted Thinking and this function is essentially good at making universal principles that apply to everyone to structure society. Indeed, law faculties seem to have an over-representation of NTJ types compared to a random sample of the general population. Philosophy of ethics is a necessart first step to making laws. It is an important component and any law faculties actually do philosophy of laws when they study and discuss laws. Many of the professors there are NTJ's and attracted to this.

That is your opinion. My judgments on my friends are a bit more open ended. I seek people for who they are.

And what makes you think that morality would not be a part of who they are? When I seek people because they are "moral" or "good" I think I'm also seeking them for who they are.

Traits do correlate to behaviour. If we were arguing over what behaviours ENTJs have, this wouldn't be so involved. The moral judgment is your own and does not belong in type theory.

I disagree and think that, yes, it does considering the theory behind Extraverted Thinking as I have previously mentionned in this post.
 

Maverick

New member
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
880
MBTI Type
ENTJ
You realize this informal experiment really only has teeth if you're allowed to have only one WoW character and so have to prioritize which one you choose?

The possibility of having alts really does make it difficult to determine what one type "favors" -- especially if they're P's, who I would guess to be even more altaholic than J's.

I agree. One way to circumvent this problem would be pick the character people have taken the most time playing with. Another would be to take only the first character. The results of these analyses may prove different and equally interesting.
 

Zergling

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,377
MBTI Type
ExTJ
The possibility of having alts really does make it difficult to determine what one type "favors" -- especially if they're P's, who I would guess to be even more altaholic than J's.

The "main/ alt" concept was (and still is) one of the stranger things when I first started reading a lot about world of warcraft. It seemed very strange that the "natural" way to play was to mostly stick to one main character, rather than have a few different ones (Just playing one character seems like it would really bore a lot of people, plus in D2 and Guild wars, the two Character buolding games I played before, the expectation was that people would have several characters that got played.)
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
Your statement is surprising. What makes you think that it is the case? What evidence is there of this? I would postulate that NTJ's are especially good at talking about moral philosophy, seeing that both ENTJ's and INTJ's have Extraverted Thinking and this function is essentially good at making universal principles that apply to everyone to structure society. Indeed, law faculties seem to have an over-representation of NTJ types compared to a random sample of the general population. Philosophy of ethics is a necessart first step to making laws. It is an important component and any law faculties actually do philosophy of laws when they study and discuss laws. Many of the professors there are NTJ's and attracted to this.

Using the same argument as you - that was what Jung said. Ti is geared towards philosophy, as you say, the very basis of morality and ethics. I will never argue that Te isn't the dominant type in law, in order, in administrative types. It is simply irrelevent, no less so than saying that SPs care more about people because they tend to be firefighters, or that SFJs care the most deeply about people because they become nurses.

People take on that which suites their nature. That's the bottom line.

And what makes you think that morality would not be a part of who they are? When I seek people because they are "moral" or "good" I think I'm also seeking them for who they are.

Some As may be part of Bs, but that does not imply that all As are Bs, that B is made of only As, or any other logical fallacy. I pick good people, not by your definition of moral people. As you said, you are not saying that ENTJs are good people, only 'moral' people. So there is nothing left to argue over. It's just a semantics now.

I'll pick good people, and some will fall into your definition of moral - what I would call rigid, including their moral stances. They make up the minority of my friends simply because I am more open and curious than they tend to be.

I do not know what to answer to this comment. I have the impression you dodged my point.

I used the best words I could find at the time. I could not find words that would not be biased towards negative traits.
 

niffer

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,217
MBTI Type
ENfP
Enneagram
8w9
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I'd always played as a hunter (crossbowman) in the MMORPGs I used to play (not WoW though). I considered being a priest once, but training took too long.
 

Noel

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
613
MBTI Type
INFP
I played a Tauren Shaman and got him up to 60. I played with a group of friends at release and found out that they needed a hybrid class. I thought, "Meh, what the hell. As long as I can travel fast, that's fine with me". I debated whether or not to play a druid or shaman, but ultimately chose the shaman because I'm not the best of healers and didn't want to be put into that position (in most group situations). Overall, playing the Shaman was alright, but I was rather disheartened to find that were so many of them. I'm a sucker for the class that no one plays and didn't really know it was going to as popular as it was. I never really went for the cookie cutter builds and wanted to try different play styles out-which unfortunately reduced me to rags. I never was really big on going on huge 40 man PVE raids like Molten Core. I mean, they were fun for the first few times, but realizing that I couldn't commit the time for raiding alongside the upper-tiered guilds, the occasional time I would panic if a lot of responsibility was bestowed on me, or the mind-numbing grind for better equipment, ultimately made me lose some interest in the game. Granted, if I was in a causal yet intelligent guild, I think that I wouldn't have such a negative approach. PVPing was fun, but again, became a bit repetitive and hated the farming aspect of it. I actually enjoyed Dark Age of Camelot's RVR (PVP) system a lot and had some great times with my Briton Mercenary (Dual-wielding light tank).

I'm really into exploring, helping my friends level up/quest/gain money to help them out and dungeon crawl with a small group. I find that friends make an MMORPG helluva a lot better to play. Class wise, hybrids are my favorite, though I'd be more likely to play as a pure melee class than a pure caster class.

I've always been drawn to druids ... had one in the original Everquest as a primary and have one now in World of Warcraft as a primary. My second favorite character is my rogue. I like the versatility of the druid (can play healer, rogue, or warrior) and the damage ability of the rogue. Since I'm an introvert, I solo a lot ... and the druid/rogue stealth abilities allow me to do things alone that would usually take groups.

I also have a Warlock on Everquest II, which I enjoy playing because ... once again ... it permits me to solo. I already have a small team with the warlock and his pet ... and do not have to socialize as much or deal with messy group dynamics.

When playing the traditional D&D type games, I tend towards the true neutral alignment ... neutral/neutral. I don't have a particular affinity for either good or evil. Once again, I usually choose a druid ... although sometimes a rogue or warrior.

Man, another EQ'er! I'd love to buy you a beer and talk about the good ol' days of EQ. Falling off of Kelethin, the legendary trains from Unrest and Castle Mistmoore, Corpse runs, running a Barbarian from Halas all the way to Freeport. Fuckin' A, they don't make mmorpgs like that anymore.

I played as a Halfling Rogue/Warrior, High Elve Paladin, and Wood Elve Bard over the course of five years (Release all the way up to Omens of War). My highest character was my 45 Bard and never in my life have I had as much fun with any other class in a game before- the purest jack-of-all-trades but master of none. Twisting songs, constantly changing your song line up, SPEED, kiting, ability to solo and group well...*sigh* yeahhhh. Needless to say, my Kiting endeavours helped deck out my party of friends' equipment.

I've played a little bit of Everquest 2 and only really made it up to the high twenties. I enjoyed my Brawler and Mystic. It was a little too big for my taste , though the environments and the game mechanics were cool. The melee combat system could be improved a bit by making the sheer amount of combat arts more unique, skillful and more significant than mashing buttons and doing just as well. Granted, the Group Chains help in that regard, but I never really noticed if they, if successful, were "life-changing". Again, I never really made it up to the higher levels, so I could be mistaken.

As far as DnD goes, I've enjoyed playing the following: Cleric, Rogue, Bard and Ranger. As far as Alignment goes, I'm a big fan of True Neutral with Chaotic Neutral as my second choice.
 

Maverick

New member
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
880
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Using the same argument as you - that was what Jung said. Ti is geared towards philosophy, as you say, the very basis of morality and ethics. I will never argue that Te isn't the dominant type in law, in order, in administrative types. It is simply irrelevent, no less so than saying that SPs care more about people because they tend to be firefighters, or that SFJs care the most deeply about people because they become nurses.

No, that's ridiculous. Te is geared towards the outside world and making rules that apply to everyone, which is the case of morality. Ti isn't.

Some As may be part of Bs, but that does not imply that all As are Bs, that B is made of only As, or any other logical fallacy. I pick good people, not by your definition of moral people. As you said, you are not saying that ENTJs are good people, only 'moral' people. So there is nothing left to argue over. It's just a semantics now.

Of course there is. People who have "good" morals is exactly the point of what you'll choose as friends.
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
No, that's ridiculous. Te is geared towards the outside world and making rules that apply to everyone, which is the case of morality. Ti isn't.

Definition of morality. I don't see much that says making rules, applying them to everyone or anything of the sort.

Definition of philosophy, note the various relationships to ethics, knowledge, etc. Take it up with Jung if you disagree about his view on Ti being geared towards exploration of philosophy. Course, that is also taken out of context, since he also talked about how different types led to different philosophy groups.


Of course there is. People who have "good" morals is exactly the point of what you'll choose as friends.

If you use two different definitions of morality, I'm sure that's true. I have a simple way of picking my friends - I base on what kind of people I want around me. I certainly don't want to be around "paladin" friends all the time, I can tell you that, which seems to be one of your definitions of "moral". In that case, no, I don't want just "moral" friends telling me what I should be doing.
 

Maverick

New member
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
880
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Definition of morality. I don't see much that says making rules, applying them to everyone or anything of the sort.

Sure, I'll just take the first definitions from that link:

concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct
ethical motive: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong

Morality is a system of principles and judgments based on cultural, religious, and philosophical concepts and beliefs, by which humans determine whether given actions are right or wrong. These concepts and beliefs are often generalized and codified by a culture or group, and thus serve to regulate the behaviour of its members. Conformity to such codification may also be called morality, and the group may depend on widespread conformity to such codes for its continued existence. ...

This is exactly what Jung was talking about in his definition of Extraverted Thinking. So it's obvious that we're talking about a process that is applied to the external world. Definitions of "right" and "wrong" for a society to function - There's nothing more TJ than that. TP's probably don't even believe there's such a thing as a right or wrong.

Definition of philosophy, note the various relationships to ethics, knowledge, etc. Take it up with Jung if you disagree about his view on Ti being geared towards exploration of philosophy. Course, that is also taken out of context, since he also talked about how different types led to different philosophy groups.

Of course, the foundations and fundamentals of philosophy are Ti. Morality is about applied concepts, the practical and "right" thing to do - All Te.

If you use two different definitions of morality, I'm sure that's true. I have a simple way of picking my friends - I base on what kind of people I want around me. I certainly don't want to be around "paladin" friends all the time, I can tell you that, which seems to be one of your definitions of "moral". In that case, no, I don't want just "moral" friends telling me what I should be doing.

Of course, but that's just picking the unhealthy variants again. Pick a healthy "paladin" friend and he won't tell you what is right/wrong but he'll live by his principles tightly.
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
Of course, the foundations and fundamentals of philosophy are Ti. Morality is about applied concepts, the practical and "right" thing to do - All Te.

Right, as I said, semantics. You believe simply doing what they think is right is moral, where I think morality is the distinction between good and bad.

If an ENTJ thinks it is correct to murder, plot and steal and then does so with great conviction, he is moral according to the Te = moral. Increasingly so if that is the cultural standard. I do not, and as such, do not believe that ENTJs deserve the title "moral". I make the non-subjective view that they act within their nature, which is to organise the world around them in their own "image" of what should be... Right or wrong.

You use moral as you have defined it above, I use it as the study of what is right and wrong, as a division of philosophy.
 

Maverick

New member
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
880
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Right, as I said, semantics. You believe simply doing what they think is right is moral, where I think morality is the distinction between good and bad.

If an ENTJ thinks it is correct to murder, plot and steal and then does so with great conviction, he is moral according to the Te = moral. Increasingly so if that is the cultural standard. I do not, and as such, do not believe that ENTJs deserve the title "moral". I make the non-subjective view that they act within their nature, which is to organise the world around them in their own "image" of what should be... Right or wrong.

You use moral as you have defined it above, I use it as the study of what is right and wrong, as a division of philosophy.

Ptgatsby, you're digging your own grave. I took that definition including right/wrong from the very link you included.
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
Ptgatsby, you're digging your own grave. I took that definition including right/wrong from the very link you included.

Yup. You seem to be looking for an argument where there is none. ENTJs act according to their own beliefs and they attempt to get others to do so too.

I was viewing it differently than you were.

From my view, ESTJs are even better at it since they uphold traditional standards. INTPs are different, since they try to use objective philosophical standards rather than subjective personal standards. INFPs are far more personal and have a stronger value system than the others, yet another version of it.

I believe that morality must come from a philosophical background for it to have any significant meaning - INTP type projection. That is to say that the action one takes is either moral or not, but the motivation to enforce moral standards does not make it moral. Your projection is that it is moral to enforce it on others. Yours is closer to the literal meaning and I had to work through the bias I had to get what you were saying.
 
Top