comeliness

[LostSoul]

I don't usually let this number affect the game mechanically... it is typically only a role playing thing.

That's why I let players pick their looks. If I used a number, I'd just let 'em pick it.

 

[LostSoul]

P.S: I can't believe I've seen in this thread someone judging a culture "unsuccessfull" by the way it considers appearance. Sad.

What I meant was that a culture that doesn't consider youth and fertility more attractive wouldn't be as "successful" as one that does. (Success being measured in population across time.) Maybe that's still sad, I don't know (or care).

 

[Ashtal]

But youth and fertility aren't quite the same thing, however.

And I hardly think that whoever has the most babies wins. 'Success' is as about as subjective a stat as, well, beauty, for that matter.

With beauty being so individual among the various sub-cultures within North America, you can't look at beauty being something so universal among all cultures across time. It just doesn't work that way.

And as idealized as Marylin Monroe was, she was a size 16. I have no doubt that if she was paraded around now, as an unknown, she would be hollared off by a large (and IMO, non-sensical) portion of the audience for being 'fat'. Standards change so much - and we're talking over the space of 50 years.

Youth and fertility are images specific to the people themselves. They all will relatively appreciate youth and fertility, but the expression of that youth and fertility will differ from place to place because of different standards, different diets, and different technology levels.

Addendum: as for using the stat in role-playing ... eh, I don't mind, as long as I get to choose it, not roll it.

 

[rounser]

What I meant was that a culture that doesn't consider youth and fertility more attractive wouldn't be as "successful" as one that does. (Success being measured in population across time.) Maybe that's still sad, I don't know (or care).

I think you'll find that male fascination with youthful females (like symmetry, waste-to-hip ratio, health etc.) is pretty universal among humans, regardless of culture. Other things vary for good reason though; the amount of melatonin in your skin being related to your life expectancy (and therefore it's relationship to "good genes") differs by climate, and may therefore affect the idea of beauty of each strand of humanity who hail from specific regions. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, theory is that our brains are tricky, though, and adapt to the beauty of the surrounding humans we grow up with - and make that our ideal. And then there's the stuff with finding the looks of a partner who looks something like your family - but definitely not too close to the looks of your family (built in safety mechanism to avoid in-breeding) - attractive, and that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish too...and then there's that beauty mask thing...evolutionary biology would have you believe that what an individual considers beautiful is a complex thing! There's a whole section of our brains dedicated to recognising faces, it probably devotes some time to recognising beauty too...

IIRC, chimps, our nearest relatives, have males which don't care what age the females are when choosing sexual partners - guided probably by their sense of beauty or sexiness. Why? Theory has it that it's because they're a lot less monogamous than we are. In fact, not really monogamous at all, really.

Human males have a bit of a universal age fetish, the theory goes, because they've evolved so as to reduce the chance of accidentally "marrying" an already-pregnant woman accidentally, and unknowingly end up looking after another man's child for years on end (thinking it their own). Young women just reaching marriageable age are less likely to be sexually active than their older counterparts, and are therefore safer bets in that respect at least...plus the youth more likely to mean healthy thing.

As we probably all know (or at least suspect), humans aren't that monogamous though. Our men have sizeable testicles compared to our body size, and the bigger the testicles compared to body size, the theory goes, the more adultery a species is "designed" (loaded word, used carelessly) to be involved in. Gorillas, who are one-partner-for-life types, have a very small testicles for their body size. Adulterous chimps, on the other hand, have huge ones. Humans fall somewhere in the middle, and fall "naturally" (another loaded, unwise word to use) into a pattern of monogamy with some excursions into adultery. No surprises there, eh?

I'm not sure how this all maps onto long lived demi-human cultures such as elves and dwarves, and I'm not sure you'd want to go there anyway!

And Ashtal's right that men's idea of female beauty is subject to fashion when it comes to body fat. The Playboy centrefolds over the years go through slim and plump phases, but their breast-hip-waste ratio never really changes, though...

 

[chatdemon]

I prefer brunettes myself, preferably with a latin look.

Preach on, my brother!


Seriously though, The problem I have with the comeliness score is that it can potentially destroy a valid character concept.

Say Bob wants to play Regdar, and pictures him as the chiseled, good looking action hero type. While a low charisma can be explained away (You've got chronic bad breath, you have the manners of a drunken umber hulk, your people don't believe in bathing, etc), there is really no getting around 'look dude, your character is butt ugly, deal with it.

Or Sue wants to play Lidda as the shy ugly duckling who has learned to live in the shadows and avoid being noticed or use people's negative reactions to her advantage. Again, a high charisma can be hidden through role playing (My character dresses in rags and smells like the stables and refuses to use her utensils while dining with the duke) but being stunningly beautiful is hard to hide, and since 1E had rules in place to have good looks positively influence reactions toward you, it could have an adverse effect on Sue's plans.

And we won't even get into the "just how high does my comeliness have to be before other men want to do me?" question a friend of mine posed back when we played 1e, with the comeliness rules.

On top of all that, the rules reflect a possibly accurate, but extremely shallow and somewhat sexist view of how people react to each other. It's fantasy, let's let charisma and role playing define how a PC is recieved by her peers, not whether or not she belongs in Playboy.

 

[LostSoul]

But youth and fertility aren't quite the same thing, however.

And I hardly think that whoever has the most babies wins. 'Success' is as about as subjective a stat as, well, beauty, for that matter.

Are they close enough for me to make wide, sweeping generalizations? Generally speaking, post-menopausal women are much less attractive than ~20 year old women (who are, if they are healthy, generally attractive). If you find an older woman who is sexually appealing, it's probably because she looks as though she were younger.

(I'm not saying that one can't be attracted to an older woman, either; there's this little thing called "intimacy". )

I guess I think beauty is universal and crosses cultural lines. But there are enough people around for us to be picky ("I don't like blondes", "I don't like someone who listens to country", etc.).

As far as "success" goes, having babies = winners only works for that specific definition. I'm not saying that you have to have kids to be a success, or anything like that. I'm saying that you have to get RICH!

babble babble

 

[Loren Pechtel]

On top of all that, the rules reflect a possibly accurate, but extremely shallow and somewhat sexist view of how people react to each other. It's fantasy, let's let charisma and role playing define how a PC is recieved by her peers, not whether or not she belongs in Playboy.

In the long run, charisma is what counts. However, it's hard for charisma to have much effect on initial reactions.

Do you honestly think that good looks don't get you much of anywhere in the world?

 

[LightPhoenix]

Something I haven't seen anyone point out is that Humans, Dwarves, Halflings, Kobolds, etc. are all different races. Talking about human cultural differences in what may be considered beautiful is good, but then applying that to an argument about whether different races find each other attractive is poor logic, unless you play other races as humans in a different form.

Symmetry of features is a pretty much a universal human definition for beauty. Everything else is pretty much relative.

On a side note, if Elves, Orcs, and Humans can interbreed, and Half-Elves and Half-Orcs can breed, then Elves, Orcs, and Humans are all one race. Could be an interesting point to explore in a campaign.

 

[LightPhoenix]

IIRC, chimps, our nearest relatives, have males which don't care what age the females are when choosing sexual partners - guided probably by their sense of beauty or sexiness. Why? Theory has it that it's because they're a lot less monogamous than we are. In fact, not really monogamous at all, really.

Human males have a bit of a universal age fetish, the theory goes, because they've evolved so as to reduce the chance of accidentally "marrying" an already-pregnant woman accidentally, and unknowingly end up looking after another man's child for years on end (thinking it their own). Young women just reaching marriageable age are less likely to be sexually active than their older counterparts, and are therefore safer bets in that respect at least...plus the youth more likely to mean healthy thing.

Marriage is a social construct. I would argue humans aren't really monogamous except through the construct of marriage, and even then not so much.

The taboo on age likely exists for two reasons - one, older females are less likely to successfully have children. Two, there's a theory that older women are needed in a social setting to teach younger women how to raise children. Childbirth exposes older women to death, and without the older women, younger women won't know how to raise children.

As we probably all know (or at least suspect), humans aren't that monogamous though. Our men have sizeable testicles compared to our body size, and the bigger the testicles compared to body size, the theory goes, the more adultery a species is "designed" (loaded word, used carelessly) to be involved in. Gorillas, who are one-partner-for-life types, have a very small testicles for their body size. Adulterous chimps, on the other hand, have huge ones. Humans fall somewhere in the middle, and fall "naturally" (another loaded, unwise word to use) into a pattern of monogamy with some excursions into adultery. No surprises there, eh?

Gorillas are not one-partner-for-life. Bonobos on the other hand are, and unless you believe that humans are monogamous, they are the only primate that are.

 

[rounser]

Talking about human cultural differences in what may be considered beautiful is good, but then applying that to an argument about whether different races find each other attractive is poor logic, unless you play other races as humans in a different form.

Exactly. However:

a) In the real world, there are no other closely genetically related human-like species we consider beautiful, therefore human variety of appearance is the closest analogue we have, and
b) Elves and dwarves look much more human than primates, but are supposed to be entirely different species.
c) Some people in this thread were/are arguing that universal beauty exists in the real world, whereas in reality it's not so easily handwaved.

Therefore, the entire thread is something of a furphy - fantasy races have matching ideas of beauty if you want them to, because they don't map onto real world theories of beauty. Besides, what are elves except "pretty, noble, fey, long-lived humans with pointy ears"? The "pretty" part of that maps onto the human idea of beauty, because they're a figment of human imaginations.