When you can't think of a name for a trait...

Recommended Posts

I've been busy creating a list of 30 personality traits for my tulpa, after reading the FAQ Man's guide for personality creation. I liked his approach, and felt that it was a good way to make a set list of traits that my tulpa could change later if he (most likely) wants to. However, I've run into a few problems with finding names for certain trait descriptions. I'm forming my tulpa to be laid-back yet charismatic (and a bit sly), and I want one of his traits to be that because of his tendencies to try and be cool and confident all of the time, he has trouble opening up about emotional things, but when he does, it's usually in the heat of the moment. I couldn't come up with a name for this trait, and I was wondering if I should just tie it onto the description for another trait, like "passionate". I'm sorry if this question comes across a bit ridiculous, I'm only just beginning the entire process of creating a tulpa.

Any feedback at all would be helpful. So far I have "laid-back", "flirtatious", "sly", "confident", "passionate", "funny", "caring/protective", "kind", "clever", "charismatic", and "unreligious".

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really, you don't have to limit yourself to a one-word trait. You could write a sentence or so if you like.


If he tries to be cool and confident (implying that this is an act) you could call it "pseudo-cool" or "faux-confident."


(I'm not a linguist, as you can tell.)


I've never read FAQman's guide (or any- I never felt the need to) so I couldn't give you any specific advice there, but don't worry about following everything straight to the letter.

White text- Ash (the host!)

Red text- Quartz!

Purple text- Gamzee!

Blue text- Obsidian!


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the guide you're talking about and went with it in certain parts. The trait part is one of the things i actually liked and used, and i think it works great for the early phase of development. However, it isn't necessary to stick with a buzzword, just keep it short.


"laid-back yet charismatic (and a bit sly)" is pretty much on point, so there is no reason why it shouldn't work that way too. It is about the definition of clear traits instead of being unclear with your image of the tulpa.


Edit: I still recommend to read some more guides, the FAQman guide is pretty lousy in some points.

Tulpa: Alice

Form: Realistic Humanoid/Demonic Creation

She may or may not talk here, depends on her.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Writing down traits isn't the goal of this exercise, what you want to do is to understand different traits, which together will shape the personality of your tulpa. In the end, I tend to advise people to use trait forcing more as a suggestion than anything that absolutely decides what your tulpa will be. Think in terms of "I would like it if you were like this", but give them the final choice.


Also, some of those traits you wrote down are a little odd to read. Flirtatious makes it sound like you want a waifu who flirts with you, and unreligious makes it sound like you want to control what they believe - it's hardly even a personality trait. I'd reconsider the list you have, and hope that you don't end up using a list that is more "my ideal boyfriend" than anything else.

Feel free to ask me anything.

Suffering is self-imposed. Don't let it control you.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, the personality forcing entails some action-to-id in general, so even if one had the best intentions for offering implicit volition after they ironed out a transitory disposition for them to foster, the potency of influence and yearning for certain attributes becoming a predisposed schemata for them gets undermined. Then comes the matter as to why the host seems demystified of their tulpa not seeming to be autonomous in some way.


In other words, the personality forcing being used in context as an end-all be-all implies that the overall disposition during development is solely contingent on a person’s actions and instances for the sake of finding something workable for their soon-to-be tulpa, and making a justification that it’s for good faith; this isn’t me making a judgement of it being morally suitable, or wrong. So, something to consider is that it’s merely a supplement, and can be a heuristic where the tulpa finds out for themselves on who they are by utilizing their actions and instances as a supplement towards their collective disposition. Because at the end of the day, they’re probably going to wonder if their existence is solely based on their actions and instances, or something much more than that.


TL;DR: If it gets them thinking as to what their existence is contingent on, and doesn't disrupt them from that trial-and-error towards sentience that's treated as genuine for the host, then there's no need to foam in your mouth if the name of the trait isn't good enough for a word slinger.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.