Would you allow this paladin in your game? (new fiction added 11/11/08)

[Furby076]

By the way, I haven't followed the current debate on what constitutes attractiveness to closely, but from what I understand it is not solely based on biological/built in factors, but also based on societal imprint (sp?). You also "learn" what is attractive.

There is a LOT of nature into what is attractive. They have done (repeated many many times over the past few decades) a baby gaze test. They take babies from a 2-6 months old (still too young to be taught what is attractive) and they show them images of stereotypical attractive and unattractive images (simultaneously, two at a time). The test showed that babies stare more (gaze) at the stereotypical attractive people.

Some signs of attractiveness:
Symmetrical features
Smooth skin
Healthy color skin
Large
Chiseled features
Slender appearance

So while some will say "hey that is not the case, attractiveness is taught." In reality, attractiveness is in our genes (and other animals). Don't doubt, animals also go for looks. Look at peacocks for example...the male peacock with the biggest brightest (and most colorful) tail gets the female peacock. Fish (i think salmon) attract their mate by reflecting light off their scales.

Like it or not, looks play a great deal.

Our higher intelligence (as humans) actually inhibits (in some ways) this aspect of nature.

 

[iwatt]

Like it or not, looks play a great deal.

I know this is true. Your example is very good, since it takes the closest thing to a clean slate (the infant).

But this doesn't discount that you are also "taught" to find things attractive. This "teaching" consists of subconsious conditioning, societal pressure, any many other factors. I base this on the fact that the ideals of beauty change over time: plumpy "prehistorical venuses" to "skinny waifs" strutting their stuff on catwalks.

In my experience, the whole concept of nature v/s nurture is incorrect. It should be called anture AND nurture. Sometime they're in direct opposition, and other times they reinforce each other. Nothing is really that simple.

Our higher intelligence (as humans) actually inhibits (in some ways) this aspect of nature.

I don't understand what you mean by this. Could you please clarify?

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

I...I base this on the fact that the ideals of beauty change over time: plumpy "prehistorical venuses" to "skinny waifs" strutting their stuff on catwalks....

And yet the "models" in all cultures over all times tend to have a 2:3 waist-hip ratio. Some things ARE constant.

To clarify what I meant by social status, an example:

One study, for example, used pictures of men and women in various types of clothing that indicated their profession and/or financial/social status. i.e. suit, tuxedo, medical scrubs, burger king uniform, etc. Men found the same women attractive regardless of what they were wearing (at least, personal differences in attractiveness accounted for most of the variance). Women found men in professional/expensive clothing most attractive, with only minor effects of the actual physical characteristics of the men. This was even tighter when they accounted for the woman's reproductive state in follow-up studies.

 

[iwatt]

And yet the "models" in all cultures over all times tend to have a 2:3 waist-hip ratio. Some things ARE constant.

This I didn't know.

So the ratio remians constant, not the absolute measurements. Any biological reason for the 2:3 ratio?

 

[Furby076]

1)But this doesn't discount that you are also "taught" to find things attractive. This "teaching" consists of subconsious conditioning, societal pressure, any many other factors. I base this on the fact that the ideals of beauty change over time: plumpy "prehistorical venuses" to "skinny waifs" strutting their stuff on catwalks.

2)In my experience, the whole concept of nature v/s nurture is incorrect. It should be called anture AND nurture. Sometime they're in direct opposition, and other times they reinforce each other. Nothing is really that simple.

3)I don't understand what you mean by this. Could you please clarify?

You know I had a really nice post, tried to subit it, and it didn't work. So to retype (i added numbers to your paragraph, makes it easier for me):

1) While there are things that we "teach" to find attractive, there are certain basic premises that are static. For example, as someone mentioned the 2:3 ratio. I forget the exact numbers, but the streotypical hour-glass figure for a woman, and upside down pyramid for a man is not stereotypical. This represents a woman in good health. The larger chest represents larger breasts (for feeding babies), the smaller waist represents a good diet, and the larger hips represent the bones have spread wide enough to allow easy child birthing. For a man, the upside pyramid shows a strong shoulder base (capable of doing manual labor) while slim waist representing a good diet. All in all, mother nature intended for us to be breeding machines.

2)We know it is Nature and Nurture...but we say VS because we are trying to figure out which is more dominate, and which controls what aspect

3) See point 3. But another example of what humans have created that mother nature did not intend. Some people select a mate because their mate makes them laugh. Mother nature does not care if your chosen mate makes you laugh - mother nature just wants you and your mate to make babies.

We are all baby making machines as far as mother nature goes

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

This I didn't know.

So the ratio remians constant, not the absolute measurements. Any biological reason for the 2:3 ratio?

Theoretically, it's the ratio a nice, fertile woman with appropriate child-bearin' hips and a healthy diet would have. There's an absolute measurement component to that (rail-thin women will never do a good job of birthin' babies, after all), as well, but we chose to fixate on the ratio. Probably because it's closest to being reliable, i.e. not dependent on the height of the woman or other characteristics.

 

[shilsen]

As I was reading this , which was very nice by the way, I was struck specially by this. As a paladin, he doesn't feel fear.

...

This is huge. I'm no psychologist or biologist, but from what I understand fear is a very useful survival trait. What would the real world effect of this inability to feel fear really have on an individual? First thing that come to mind is that there, aren't any Lev 3 paladins who are adrenalin junkies. Any other ideas on this subject. How would this affect Cedric, since you're trying to round him out as a more "human" paladin (or that is mat kleast my impression from your posts).

I'd say rather that I'm trying to flesh Cedric out more as a multifaceted paladin than simply a more "human" one. After all, if "human" is based on qualities shared by the majority of the species, then Cedric's qualities and personality would make him count as non-human in many ways. Incidentally, where the lack of fear is concerned, I have to confess that I wasn't evern referring to the paladin's immunity to it. The closing paragraph, where Cedric looks within himself and finds certain thoughts and emotions, actually arose out of a discussion I had with a friend over lunch on Thursday. We were talking about personal philosophies and self-awareness (which she knows I'm big on) and she asked me something like, "So what emotions do you see when you look within?" I gave her a description much like the last paragraph, and later thought of using it in the story, with a couple of tweaks. So the lack of fear I was referring to for Cedric was actually based on my idea of his personality rather than the paladin ability.

As for how I would consider the paladin immunity affecting the personality, in Cedric's case I would see him as encountering situations where he might otherwise feel fear and being aware that it is only his paladin ability that prevents it. Thus, while the physical reactions of fear wouldn't actually be present, his self-awareness would allow him to intellectually respond to a technically fearful situation. So I don't think a lack of actual fear would make him any more (or less) reckless in his actions. I'm not sure if that answers your question about my take on it.

witrhnrespect to your post: It allays (sp?) my doubts that Cedric wasn't a beacon of hope. He ast least now represents in my mind the kind of guy who will do the right thing regardless of circumstances. It is right for him to help his friend. It's still hopeles, and he can feel sad about that, but he's vindicated in the fact that he's doing the right thing.

Thanks. Though I've obviously fleshed out the character a lot more over time than in my first post on this thread, this is a quality I saw the character as possessing all along.

 

[Voadam]

Not a good example - the apple is the object of your desire (to satisfy your hunger) in this case, not the vendor. The vendor is merely that which is required to facilitate you getting you the object you want. Thus, you have not objectified a person.

In the case of prostitution, the body of the other person - which is an integral part of that person - is the object of your desire (to satisfy your sex drive). In this case you have objectified a person (and the pimp - or the time the person spent negotiating with you - would be analagous to the vendor - that which is required to facilitate you receiving the object of your desire). In the case of a self-employed prostitute, the vendor IS the apple.

(Hope that makes sense.)

--The Sigil

Another couple of examples.

Professional sports or dance. Both the professionals are using their bodies to perform for the entertainment of the audience.

When I go to the ballet I watch to apreciate the performance. I don't know the ballerinas. I don't know if they are happy or sad or fulfilled by their being dancers. I have no ill will or animus towards them, I'm just appreciating the performance they create with their bodies. In fact I'm paying for their performance with their bodies without consideration of them as individuals. Is going to the ballet evil objectification of the dancers?

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

...Is going to the ballet evil objectification of the dancers?

Depends on who you ask. Some people would actually say "yes."

I'd say no. But then, I'm the guy who thinks prostitution does not necessarily involve "evil" objectification of women, so maybe I'm just nuts.

 

[Crass]

To answer your base question, yes I would allow the character - subject to campaign setting. For instance, a campaign set in (actual) ancient Babylon c. 500-600 BC - the character would fit in as women were expected to fill certain roles in society - including that of a whore who had to sleep with a specified number of men (7, I believe) prior to marriage, commonly working in whorehouses to fulfill their societal obligations. So, to reiterate - subect to campaign setting the characer as written would be accepatable.