Blatantly cut and pasted from a post by Hafwit over at rpgnet, because I found it pretty interesting:

QuoteI like random tables, so I've created a set of tables (using 1d6-1d6) to create the social and psychological make-up of a species. I think it would be funny to start with the mindset, and then create the physical being based on that.

The Bailey-Wolfe Scale was created by Bailywolf in this thread.

Neotropism- how easily new ideas and beings are accepted. A low score would mean that the race is staid and conservative, while a high score would connote a species of xenophiles.

-5 The species is often highly xenophobic and intensely resistant to new ideas. They are very likely to view other species as inferior.
-4: The species is very staid and and often highly protective of their values.
-3: The species is a bit on the conservative side, and have a very hard time empathizing with others not of 'the group'.
-2: The species has a strong resistance to new ideas or innovations.
-1: The species is somewhat staid, but can appreciate new ideas, and take part in different societies, although it takes effort.
0: The species have created a balance between holding on to old knowledge and behavior, while embracing new knowledge and species.
+1: The species appreciate new ideas, and implement them at a fair speed.
+2: The new arouses interest, rather than apprehension in these beings.
+3: The species very much enjoy new ideas, species, or innovations.
+4: The species is composed of xenophiles who enter into foreign societies as easily as their own.
+5: The species has no sense of in-group and out-group differences at all. They hardly define themselves as a species.

Sociability- how easily cooperative groups are formed. The lower the score, the less social the species.

-5: There are no social groups among this species, whether paired mates or governments.. Mating and child raising may be lethal affairs.
-4: The species hardly has any impulse to form social groups, except possibly in the face of complete destruction.
-3: Social groups are rarely formed, except perhaps while mating.
-2: These loners only rarely form lasting social groups, but brief relationships are formed from time to time.
-1: The species is somewhat individualistic and value the strong loner as an archetype, but has no problem form groups as necessary
0: the sphere of the individual is in perfect balance with that of the group.
+1: The species have a definite sense of individuality, but a given being will naturally gravitate towards forming groups with others.
+2: The individual exists for the benefit of society, and a given being often have myriad obligations to family, clan, state, and society as a whole.
+3: Individuality is the exception rather than the rule, and achievements are always seem as group efforts rather than personal accomplishments. Ostracism may well be the worst punishment.
+4: The species has very little in the way of individuality. There are groups on every level of society. If separated from its species, an individual will often latch on to another group. Any group will do.
+5: The species only truly exist when together with others. There is only 'we', no individuality. Social boundaries, such as personal space do not exist. The species is, in a sense, a hive mind.

Instinct- how 'pre-programmed' the species is, versus learned behaviors, and societal influence.

-5: members of the species emerge fully formed, without a capacity for learning. Their societies are intensely conservative. The individual beings are often highly effective in their home environment, but will likely have serious trouble elsewhere.
-4: These beings' behavior is genetic. They only learn new skills, or behaviors when their existence is threatened.
-3: The species has a very hard time learning new behavior, but make up for it with strong instinctual behavior.
-2: Much of the species' behavior is instinctual and inborn, but they can learn when confronted with strong challenges to their instinctual behavior.
-1: Nature trumps nurture for this species, but they are both important.
0: the species is perfectly balanced between instinct and learned behavior.
+1: Nurture weighs heavier than nature for this species, but both are important.
+2: The species need to learn much of their behavior and skills.
+3: The species has little in the way of instinctual behavior.
+4: The species has almost no inborn abilities or behavior. They are generally very good a t learning new things.
+5: The creatures are born tabula rasa- all behavior is learned behavior

Logic- how adept at reasoning via logical paradigms the species is. A low score would indicate that the species finds it hard to shift between paradigms.

-5: The species is single-minded in the extreme. Their thinking patterns are based on rigid tradition, or revealed, 'perfect' knowledge.
-4: The species operate according to one paradigm, bare able to fathom the idea of others.
-3: The species recognizes the existence of other paradigms, but needs to put real effort into grasping them.
-2: While the species has a core paradigm, it is capable of using others, although this takes some mental work.
-1: Changing from one intellectual world-model to another is doable, but the species usually has one or two it falls back on.
0: The species has a few paradigms that it can change between. It takes a bit of effort though.
+1: The species is good at seeing things from different intellectual paradigms.
+2: the species is very good at shifting from one paradigm to another.
+3: The species has no foundational paradigm, but shift among many, with little effort.
+4: These beings easily navigate between logical viewpoints, to the point of seeming chaotic. Theories and viewpoints often stand in the way of getting things done.
+5 The species seems positively schizophrenic to others. They can assess a situation through the lens of several paradigms at once.

Foresight- the ability to assess immediate decisions in terms of future payoffs. The higher the rating, the longer the species can easily plan ahead... which can imply very long lifespans or biological imperatives to protect the geneline into the future, or something stranger.

-5 The species live in an eternal present, and are unable to plan or make any qualified assumptions about the future.
-4 Planning does not go beyond a few days, or maybe hours. The universe is a morass of unforseeables anyway.
-3: The Governing bodies are ad hoc groups, forming and dissolving in a matter of weeks.
-2 species has a hard time seeing beyond the immediate future, and planning outside the easily foreseeable
-1: Some amount on planning takes place, but the species cannot make detailed plans beyond their current life situation.
0: The species are good at planning, but don't see beyond themselves.
+1: These beings are good planners, but still rarely see far beyond their own generation.
+2: The species plans decades ahead.
+3: The species easily plans decades ahead, and their lives focus on the future as much as the present.
+4: the species see far into the future, and plan for the benefit of many generations (or centuries of long-lived beings' lives).
+5: This species takes a view so long that it is hard for others to conceive of. This may be due to a long life, or an instinctual biological imperative to ensure the survival of the species,

Pattern Recognition - too high and you're subject to lots of apophenia, too low and you're unable to make decisions without direct logical connections (or you substitute Logic for PR- using statistical analysis of data instead).

-5: the species is literally incapable of making any decisions without strict and direct logical connections. The species may have no written word.
-4: the species has a tendency to use logic in place of pattern recognition, leading to generalizations applied to individuals and situations.
-3: the species is at a definite disadvantage, when dealing with situations where logic cannot be readily applied
-2: The species prefer logic to recognizing patterns. They may insist on scientific data, all but ignoring anecdotal evidence.
-1: The species is decent as recognizing patterns, but prefers logic.
0: The species is in perfect balance between logic and pattern recognition.
+1: Similarities and unforeseen incidents affect these beings slightly stronger than do statistics and rigid logic.
+2: The species suffer from a fair amount of apophenia.
+3: This species can certainly apply abstract logic, but tend to see what they expect to in the given data.
+4: It is a rare occurrence that doesn't fall into a pattern for this species. The shapes of the clouds, the numbers of the stock market, the stains on the carpet are all meaningful to some extent.
+5: These beings are afloat in a sea of apophenia. They may have a world view which resembles animism. No data is insignificant or random to this species.

Similar to the one found in Starcluster 3.

Quote from: Silverlion;471714Similar to the one found in Starcluster 3.

Page 343 print, 346 pdf. The Bailey-Wolfe Index is my coining, after bailywolf, who came up with the idea.

-clash

...That set of tables does not represent the most important issues. Namely:

How much the species wants to eat you and whether or not they can:

-5 The species considers you delicious and is largely impervious to your ground weapons.
-4 The species considers you delicious and is largely impervious to your small arms.
-3 The species considers you delicious.
-2 The species keeps an eye on your snacking potential.
-1 The species is mildly interested in eating you.
0 The species has neither interest in, nor objection to, eating you.
+1 The species has a mild objection to eating you.
+2 The species would go out of their way, but not to distress, to avoid eating you.
+3 The species has very strong objections to eating you.
+4 The species would rather eat the things they find under proverbial rocks than eat you, thank you very much. They're not much threat, either.
+5 The species would rather eat proverbial rocks than eat you. And if they tried, you might even notice.

And there we have it, summed up in one handy table: The most important thing to know about another species.

Funny, I kept reading the characteristics, especially the first table, and was thinking "democrat....republican...."   No big surprise that republicans were the negative category in the first table.  

Quote from: Joethelawyer;471777Funny, I kept reading the characteristics, especially the first table, and was thinking "democrat....republican...."   No big surprise that republicans were the negative category in the first table.  

Yeah while quite useful it's cherry picking a few different psychological themes and laying them out in a certain order - for example in the table xenophobic also means unwilling or slow to take in new ideas. Contrast to that I would point out the nazis, who hated everyone that wasn't part of the peroxide plan, but were extremely quick to take up new ideas. This isn't nearly the full range of possibilities.

Quote from: The Traveller;471883Yeah while quite useful it's cherry picking a few different psychological themes and laying them out in a certain order - for example in the table xenophobic also means unwilling or slow to take in new ideas. Contrast to that I would point out the nazis, who hated everyone that wasn't part of the peroxide plan, but were extremely quick to take up new ideas. This isn't nearly the full range of possibilities.

As I so aptly demonstrated.

Narf's table trumps all of the other tables put together, as far as being useful in game. Good stuff!

Fair enough.

RPGPundit

The average RPG.net poster:

Quote-5 The species is often highly xenophobic and intensely resistant to new ideas. They are very likely to view other species as inferior.

+5: The species only truly exist when together with others. There is only 'we', no individuality. Social boundaries, such as personal space do not exist. The species is, in a sense, a hive mind.

-5: members of the species emerge fully formed, without a capacity for learning. Their societies are intensely conservative. The individual beings are often highly effective in their home environment, but will likely have serious trouble elsewhere.

-5: The species is single-minded in the extreme. Their thinking patterns are based on rigid tradition, or revealed, 'perfect' knowledge.

-5 The species live in an eternal present, and are unable to plan or make any qualified assumptions about the future.

-5 to +5 [depending on the topic]: the species is literally incapable of making any decisions without strict and direct logical connections. The species may have no written word.  Alternatively, these beings are afloat in a sea of apophenia. They may have a world view which resembles animism. No data is insignificant or random to this species.