D&D (2024) Do players really want balance?

[Oofta]

Likewise calling is subjective does not make it so.

This is a folk saying and an aphorism. It's not an argument, nor a self-evident truth.

Ideas of beauty and ideals have varied over time and by culture and will continue to do so. To the ancient Greeks, a large male member was undesirable. Throughout much of history being overweight was an ideal. Beauty and what we consider desirable is subjective.

There are a few things that are at least somewhat baked in like how most people find babies adorable despite being annoying and there's the nature versus nurture argument. But beauty? It's in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Maxperson]

Likewise calling is subjective does not make it so.

This is a folk saying and an aphorism. It's not an argument, nor a self-evident truth.

Beauty is very subjective. I remember once some friends and I were talking and one of them brought up how beautiful Julia Roberts is. I told them that I didn't think she was beautiful at all and told them why. They all thought I was crazy. I still don't think she's beautiful and would give her a 6.5 out of 10 just like I did then.

We all have different tastes and while some, even many would find great beauty in the gardens of Japan, there are others out there who would find beauty where others don't, like in that pile of lawn clippings in Doncaster.

 

[ezo]

Beauty is very subjective. I remember once some friends and I were talking and one of them brought up how beautiful Julia Roberts is. I told them that I didn't think she was beautiful at all and told them why. They all thought I was crazy. I still don't think she's beautiful and would give her a 6.5 out of 10 just like I did then.

We all have different tastes and while some, even many would find great beauty in the gardens of Japan, there are others out there who would find beauty where others don't, like in that pile of lawn clippings in Doncaster.

I think there is a BIG difference between beauty and attraction IMO. I can understand if you don't find Julia Roberts attractive--I don't either, but I have to acknowledge she is a beautiful woman in general. I can say this about a lot of people, who I don't personally find attractive, but no denying they are beautiful people.

I see a distinction, even if others don't find one. It's just my take.

 

[Oofta]

Beauty is very subjective. I remember once some friends and I were talking and one of them brought up how beautiful Julia Roberts is. I told them that I didn't think she was beautiful at all and told them why. They all thought I was crazy. I still don't think she's beautiful and would give her a 6.5 out of 10 just like I did then.

We all have different tastes and while some, even many would find great beauty in the gardens of Japan, there are others out there who would find beauty where others don't, like in that pile of lawn clippings in Doncaster.

When it comes to lawns, personally what I find beautiful is a yard planted with native wildflowers supporting the bees and pollinators of all sorts while also providing food to birds.

Meanwhile some people would call the following a great work of art and of the highest quality. The following just sold for $93.1 million. To me? It looks like something a reasonably adept kid in junior high could have done.

 

[Oofta]

I think there is a BIG difference between beauty and attraction IMO. I can understand if you don't find Julia Roberts attractive--I don't either, but I have to acknowledge she is a beautiful woman in general. I can say this about a lot of people, who I don't personally find attractive, but no denying they are beautiful people.

I see a distinction, even if others don't find one. It's just my take.

There are tendencies to find certain things beautiful built into us by evolution. That doesn't make it broadly applicable to areas not related to survival mechanisms.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I'll just note other people have mentioned there are factors that are stronger from the mid-2010s on than previously. You may disagree with that assessment or the weight put on it, but its not like it hasn't been brought up.

I just don’t think you can credibly claim that the other factors are independent of design choices. There is a lot of social media supporting 5e, but that because 5e’s fairly streamlined design supports Let’s Plays more than 3e, 4e and PF2. Matt Mercer is on record stating that Crit Role switched from PF1 to 5e because it was more streamable.

 

[Maxperson]

I think there is a BIG difference between beauty and attraction IMO. I can understand if you don't find Julia Roberts attractive--I don't either, but I have to acknowledge she is a beautiful woman in general. I can say this about a lot of people, who I don't personally find attractive, but no denying they are beautiful people.

I don't acknowledge either with her. For me her mouth is too big when she smiles, her chin is too pointy and prominent, and her face is too flat. She's above average, but not pretty, very pretty or beautiful.

I see a distinction, even if others don't find one. It's just my take.

There is a difference, but beauty is not an objective measure. I find little to no beauty in modern art, but I do love impressionist and post-impressionist art.

As another example, when I was younger I worked retail. One of my retail jobs was at a department store that had corporate offices above it. Sometimes the catalog photo shoot would happen at our store. One day one of the models came down to walk around the store and she stopped and flirted with me. She was pretty and there was definitely an attraction. At least up until someone's baby cried and the model said, "Don't you just hate that sound. It makes me want to drag the baby in back of the store and strangle it." Instantly all attraction was gone and I told her that I had to get back to work. Did she stop being pretty to me? No. The attractiveness was gone.

Julia Roberts doesn't even make it to pretty in my opinion and I've never been attracted to her.

 

[ezo]

There are tendencies to find certain things beautiful built into us by evolution.

Of course--like babies. I find most babies ugly, but I know most people find them "adorable" or whatever. The whole "big eye" thing is common across species in infants, and why many people find it agreeable in some anime, for instance.

That doesn't make it broadly applicable to areas not related to survival mechanisms.

Which is nothing related to what I was talking about... Perhaps it was part of your discussion with others upthread?

I don't acknowledge either with her. For me her mouth is too big when she smiles, her chin is too pointy and prominent, and her face is too flat. She's above average, but not pretty, very pretty or beautiful.

Her features have a symmetry generally acknowledged as beautiful, along with her smile, complextion, etc. The items you point out seem more like the reasons for lacking attraction, not beauty.

There is a difference, but beauty is not an objective measure. I find little to no beauty in modern art, but I do love impressionist and post-impressionist art.

Actually, beauty often does have objective measures, like the symmetry in a person's face, for example. Modern art might also--I am not an "art person" so I really can't tell you, but I think it likely.

As another example, when I was younger I worked retail. One of my retail jobs was at a department store that had corporate offices above it. Sometimes the catalog photo shoot would happen at our store. One day one of the models came down to walk around the store and she stopped and flirted with me. She was pretty and there was definitely an attraction. At least up until someone's baby cried and the model said, "Don't you just hate that sound. It makes me want to drag the baby in back of the store and strangle it." Instantly all attraction was gone and I told her that I had to get back to work. Did she stop being pretty to me? No. The attractiveness was gone.

Yep. This is a perfect example of why Charisma impacted Comliness in AD&D 1E.

Most of my girlfriends were never "beautiful" by the typical standard, but those imperfections where what I found attractive. And I've also been in the position where someone's character either increased or decreased my attraction to them--and regardless of that they continued to be either beautiful or not (as the case was), because in beauty is not as subjective as most people like to think IMO. Attraction, on the other hand, is very subjective.

 

[Oofta]

Of course--like babies. I find most babies ugly, but I know most people find them "adorable" or whatever. The whole "big eye" thing is common across species in infants, and why many people find it agreeable in some anime, for instance.


Which is nothing related to what I was talking about... Perhaps it was part of your discussion with others upthread?


Her features have a symmetry generally acknowledged as beautiful, along with her smile, complextion, etc. The items you point out seem more like the reasons for lacking attraction, not beauty.


Actually, beauty often does have objective measures, like the symmetry in a person's face, for example. Modern art might also--I am not an "art person" so I really can't tell you, but I think it likely.


Yep. This is a perfect example of why Charisma impacted Comliness in AD&D 1E.

Most of my girlfriends were never "beautiful" by the typical standard, but those imperfections where what I found attractive. And I've also been in the position where someone's character either increased or decreased my attraction to them--and regardless of that they continued to be either beautiful or not (as the case was), because in beauty is not as subjective as most people like to think IMO. Attraction, on the other hand, is very subjective.

Most people find babies beautiful in a sense, you don't and that's fine. That's because it's just a built-in tendency. We find some things of value because they helped our distant ancestors survive. It's why many people like bacon ... all that concentrated fat would have been a great source of calories for our ancestors.

Which means that judgements like beauty are subjective, not objective. We may develop standards for beauty that can be measured but those standards vary from one culture to the next and over time. Just look at what the ideal female figure is. Our paleolithic ancestors apparently thought women we would consider obese were the ideal.

 

[Maxperson]

Her features have a symmetry generally acknowledged as beautiful, along with her smile, complextion, etc. The items you point out seem more like the reasons for lacking attraction, not beauty.

Beauty isn't objective. Symmetry is a factor in attractiveness, but does not itself say whether or not someone is attractive, let alone beautiful.

Actually, beauty often does have objective measures, like the symmetry in a person's face, for example. Modern art might also--I am not an "art person" so I really can't tell you, but I think it likely.

That is not objective beauty. People tend to prefer symmetry in faces, but note the wording they use. Tend to prefer. It's subjective. Not everyone does prefer. Not everyone finds the same symmetry to be beautiful. Even when symmetry is perfect, it still remains only one factor in whether someone is considered beautiful or not.

What science has found is that more symmetry results in more people rating those faces higher in attractiveness. Not all people. And higher does not equate to beautiful.

One person with a perfectly symmetrical face might be rated above average, another pretty, and a third beautiful. Symmetry isn't the end all be all of beauty. Why? Because beauty still remains in the eye of the beholder, and there is no beauty in Julia Roberts for me, and no attractiveness.

Consider this. A face is pockmarked and covered in pimples, but those things are perfectly symmetrical on both sides of the face, as are the eyes. The person has no eyebrows, which is also symmetrical as it's even on both sides. Is that person going to be considered beautiful, even though the symmetry is perfect?