Who is the judge here?

[Bestatte]

Not criticising Rindan...but your spelling error just begged me to react. I can't help myself, please forgive me and take it in the jesting manner in which it was intended.

And now (badum dum)

If I had to tell someone to find the "hansom dark-haired man" it would be very easy. I'd just ask them to look for the guy who resembles a taxi cab.

(Hansom is another word for a taxi cab. Handsome is the word to describe physical attractiveness).

You may laugh now and pelt me with strange and unusual morsels of putrid vegetation.

[flurry]

My first thought in reading this thread is something my h.s. creative writing teacher told the class: "show, don't tell."    And I think that applies here.   If you want your PC to be beautiful or handsome, show that in the description.     Describe them in a manner that resembles 'beautiful' to you.

As for the golden ratio and waist-to-hip ratio and all that ... yeah, there's some kind of common ground on what is "beautiful" or "handsome" or "attractive" or "breathtaking".   But those are much more subjective than other adjectives you see like "towering" or "buxom" or "light-skinned" or "thick-armed".

[spawnloser]

In the USA, the generalized ideal of beauty for a woman is supermodel-thin with virtually no body hair.

But, you are proving my point.  There are generalized norm standards among any group.  You all can bitch, whine, and give examples to the contrary all you want.  The fact remains that there are norms accepted by the majority of any society.  It's no different than someone's example of a dwarf with "noble" features.

Any society...but there are multiple societies...in real life and in in Armageddon.

Also, I've said it before and it bears repeating...Babies are nothing but crying, puking, shitting, pissing, eating balls of fat.

[Crestor]

Whether or not there are generalised ideals of beauty in a society, despite being an interesting argument, is not of true relevance here, because however common the ideal is there is ALWAYS someone who doesn't follow it.  Even if that's the human with psychological problems who doesn't find that utterly symmetrical-faced, wafer-thin, blonde supermodel attractive.

The point is that these things shouldn't shown under the descriptor of "beautiful" in game because for all that PC knows, another PC could be looking at them that violates the following of the ideal.  So your character is supposed to be universally attractive?  Tough luck.  Nobody's universally attractive, because even the most 'beautiful' people have people who don't lust after them.

Edit: further...I can perhaps see how some people might see it as alright, since the adjective 'beautiful' could be considered a replacement for the various things we've already ascribed to the common ideal of beauty - OOC beauty.  "The beautiful human" could be seen by players to refer to someone who fulfills our OOC ideas of beauty.  Our character wouldn't have to find them beautiful - but we would have a clear idea of how they were meant to look.

But if that's the case...then why not simply describe the character without using such a forceful adjective?

Second edit: I can't leave this post alone, can I?  :roll: Having re-read what I just wrote, I've come to the conclusion: the staff let it through, it was approved, and so long as the character's not being played as a bland f-me PC then I don't really have a problem with it.  Despite what my post might have suggested.  I just think there are better alternatives to 'beautiful'.

[Armaddict]

That 'Show, don't Tell' rule is the one I use, as well.

I've 'told' on occasion, but I try to steer away from it when I realize it.  I try to keep my description as unbiased and physical as possible.

When I see a description where someone desribes them selves as gorgeous or handsome...I tend to think that means they want their character to get laid

[Jacques]

It is dishartening to think physical attractiveness comes down to math, but I guess everything comes down to math in the end.

Yes, and it's all done in base 4. (Bonus points to whoever figures out WTF I'm talking about here)

Back to the original topic, however. I tend think that the use of descriptors such as "beautiful" and the like are better done when qualified (e.g. more beautiful than a 3-day-old corpse), if at all. However, it is important to remember that many of these kinds of things are relative. For example - someone being "tall". Tall relative to WHAT? Have we ever seen the sdesc "The impressively tall halfling?" Why not? A 4-cord halfling would be a GIANT among his own kind. Or a "firm" bosom - firm relative to what? The "tuck them in the belt" woman AC was describing? Relative to granite? Did I actually go squeeze them to verify this? In many cases we use these relational words to give a GENERAL feeling for the image that we're trying to project. So if you don't WANT to think the person is particularly beautiful... don't!

But don't hate me because I'm beautiful.  :wink:

[X-D]

Some things there is no way around, like when you are playing a half-giant and you see "the tiny gaunt figure in a hooded cloak" "the massive towering man lowers the hood of his cloak"  assess -v towering, less the half your height, he weighs many times less then you, or however it goes.

But I think it was Sanvean that said once that descriptions are based on the human norm..or something like that.

Sorta like when I'm playing a dwarf, the closer a human char is to human beauty, the uglier that char is to my dwarf.

As far as the system that has been figured out to judge human beauty, it is probly right, but to me, people that fit that are simply boring, average if you will.

Even if that's the human with psychological problems who doesn't find that utterly symmetrical-faced, wafer-thin, blonde supermodel attractive.

Boring.
Blonde looks sickly to me, thin also does, not much good for survival or having children, wear out too easy in the sack too. :twisted:

[Cuusardo]

Or a "firm" bosom - firm relative to what? The "tuck them in the belt" woman AC was describing? Relative to granite? Did I actually go squeeze them to verify this?

I could get WAY out of hand commenting on this...   :lol:

[spawnloser]

I always thought the descriptors should be relative to race.

[ShaLeah]

On Zalanthas beauty comes down to how well your describe is written and how well you can roleplay. That's the bottom line. It never fails to tickle me, the ugly ass character with the good looking girlfriend.  One perfect example of this was Fatty Tor, ugly as sin but that didn't matter, he had plenty of women fawning over him. I can't think of any other famous older characters I could safely use as an example, tis late and I am sleepy. Thought of one!  A certain ruby skinned person, plain as hell really but it was written beautifully and the person could RP like no one's business.  
My point is that I am the judge. And you are, and he is, and she is, and we're all the judge on what our characters find attractive.

[Ayashah]

Actually, beauty comes down to proportions of the face. Everything needs to be in the right proportion (called the Golden something. Mean?) to be seen as beautiful. Marilyn Monroe, called one of the most beautiful women of all time, met or nearly met the Golden whatever 100%.

Did you know that Marilyn Monroe wore a size 14?  So the trend for skinny ass, bony structure stuff came after her.

[UnderSeven]

I am heavily disinclined to go with genetic beauty.. I know for the most part it's true that equal proportions are considered beautiful, but genetics are not the same across the charts.  Mutations will lead to different feelings for what is beautiful.  I for one do not find Minroe beautiful at all, infact I find her very much not so. Ultimatly I am inclined to agree with Shal here.

You can write your vision of a breath taking person all you want, muscular men or big breasted women and put 'gorgeous' in their sdesc, but that doesn't mean a thing.  I for one prefer much niether of the above.  Everyone likes something different. You'll never see me use subjective words in my descs, but for those who do, I don't really care anyway, I'll look at your desc and make up my own mind about what my char thinks.  Yes, the judge is always the beholder.

[Ayashah]

I agree with Underseven and Shaleah. I have to admit though, myself, as a player, tends to automatically dismiss people with beautiful, handsome, imp, damsel, etc in their short. Why? Because it just makes me assume that they are forcing opinions on their pc and it lends an impression of wanting to 'hook' up. I remember being pretty disgusted that 'imp' wasnt a deformed person but instead was trying to imply their personality in that word within the short description.

I did, on one occasion, decide to basically 'mess' with someone that had handsome in his description. hehehe  Since he was so 'handsome' I had my pc stare, stutter, get all flustered around him as a hoot for me one time. I am glad I did because we ended up rp'ng and found out he was actually a really great rp'r, not the 'lets go mudsex till ARM freezes over' type. BUT had he not had that in his short description, would I have ever rp'd with him? Who knows.

As for whomever was putting down f-me made pcs, to each their own. Look at the npcs that are wealthy. Look at the rich clothes in the shops. As much as everyone wants to toss out that its NOT the norm for sexy, that those that have more cushion for pushing are sexy, the items and game world tends to contradict it. Add to the fact that those that do the hiring dont tend to turn away the rail thin, blonde super models as their aides, cooks, etc. Nor do they turn away the Flash Gordon types for the same things. So in the end, its alot of things that make up what is beautiful/handsome in the mud and alot of that is made up by what the player decides in their own mind.

[UnderSeven]

I've used imp before, it's not nessicarily deformed, but rather can be just about anyone whose short.  I think Imp can be a perfectly fair word for a description in some causes. Damsal I imagine looking a little drab.  That's really not such a bad one either, the difference with a word like damsal versus beautiful is one is projecting an imagine on their own char and the other is projecting an oppinion on your char.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

You'll never see me use subjective words in my descs, but for those who do, I don't really care anyway, I'll look at your desc and make up my own mind about what my char thinks.  Yes, the judge is always the beholder.

Percisely.

[Angela Christine]

I found a post that details the guidlines app reviewers are working with:

I just ran across what I'd written for app reviewers. I'll post it here so you know what guidelines staff members are working by:

Inappropriate adjectives: do not reject someone for adjectives like "steel" or "icy" on the grounds that these are unknown in Zalanthas. The majority of the people reading the description will originate on our own planet and will know what steel and ice are. On the flip side, unless someone has found something incredibly obscure to use in their description, they should generally be encouraged to use Zalanthan adjectives and comparisons. It is all right for them to have tattoos of anakores or shiks, even if they do not live in those creatures' hunting grounds.

You can reject an application on the grounds of an unoriginal or outlandish name, but the best rule of thumb for this would be "Would the name be jarring if you ran across it in a fantasy novel?" Familiar fantasy names, such as Frodo, Drizzt, Merlin, etc, should be rejected, but use a grain of common sense and consider whether the source is something most players would know, as opposed to only those versed in ancient Sumerian verse. Sometimes players use names taken from Dark Sun novels. I let these through because I have sampled a few of the Dark Sun novels and would rather have my eyes gouged out than become familiar enough with these works to actually recognize any of the names.

Rejecting on the basis of short description: if it's something like "a" instead of "the", use the web editor to fix it. Subjective words such as "handsome" or "alluring" are allowable if they have the description to back them up. Behavior words such as "serene" or "silent" are not good -- but sometimes allowable if they can be changed to something like "the serene-looking". Changeable words, such as "dirty" or "cleanshaven" are perfectly fine. Words like "warrior," "concubine," etc. should be rejected unless some special concept like "the dirty flearidden beggar" has been cleared ahead of time.

Rejecting on the basis of keywords: people should have, at a minimum, the words that are contained in their sdesc, with the obvious exception of "the". Sometimes people get confused and include a lot of unnecessary keywords, thinking that since they're mentioned in the main description, they should be included. Generally, simply edit these out. We are relaxing the requirement on having to have the racial keywords -- half-elves should be able to "pass" if they want to and this seems to be an unnecessary hoop that has been frustrating many people.

Rejecting on the basis of main description: descriptions need to be at least four lines long. The last line need not absolutely be a complete line, but remember that the app process tells them four complete lines. If they have behaviors in the description that are specific, such as 'his hand restlessly reaches for his dagger', they can be rejected but something like 'looks back at you' is (marginally) allowable. Conditions that may change over the course of play, such as degree of dirtiness or grooming, are permissible. As with sdescs, Zalanthan references are fine unless they are obscure to the point where most players would not know the term. As always, use common sense, and try to be newbie friendly. Reading the section written for the players on descriptions in the introductory section of the webpage may be helpful here.

Rejecting on the basis of background: references to the following must be cleared with the appropriate immortal before they can be used: Blackwing, Tan Muark, Anyali or any of the noble houses. If there is a problem with chronology, i.e. they said they were born during the fall of Tuluk but their age means they would have been a year old at that time, it is allowable to edit the background or age. Please remember to drop them a note saying you've done it. Players should feel some degree of freedom to be creative with their backgrounds, although not to the point of absurdity (bastard child of the Lord of Ash, Tek's cousin once removed, etc.)

Rejecting on the basis of clan: needless to say, clans should be approved by the appropriate immortal, and that person should have told the player to put a note to the effect of "Concept approved by X" in their background, preferably in the top line. (This does not mean reject them if it appears in the last line rather than the top.) It is better to take the stance that the player has mistakenly forgotten to include the "Approved by" text in their background when writing the rejection message. Write a friendly reminder like, "This concept/clan requires imm approval in the form of "Approved by X" in your background. Please apply again and include the name of the immortal sponsoring this concept. Thanks" instead of, "Hey, retard, you can't slip by me that easy! NO IMM SPONSOR == NO RAT EATING HALF-GIANT HAHAHAHAHAHA YOU LOSE, I AM KING, DIE DIE DIE. NGG NGG NGGG"

Overall, too much nitpicking alienates players, wastes their time and yours, and makes us look silly. Please try to avoid this. If you are uncertain about an application, leave it in the queue for someone else, or consult someone on the game about it. If you're feeling rushed for time, don't do applications, but leave them for someone who does have time to devote to them. We are and always have been about quality over quantity, and no one wants a rush job, especially not when it comes to making a first impression on a new player.

I suppose I didn't need the whole post, but it's a good read, right?  The relevent bit is, "Subjective words such as "handsome" or "alluring" are allowable if they have the description to back them up."  So you can be "the handsome mantis" as long as your description details your attractive insectile features.

I agree that words like that in the sdesc are somewhat undesireable, because it can make it difficult for others to quickly describe them, so it's probably better to keep those subjective type words in the main desc if you feel you need to use it.  

If you run accross someone like this, then a thesaurus can be your friend.  You might describe the hansome man as a pretty boy, slutty looking, all dolled up, catamite wannabe, healthy looking, looks like a ladies man, man-whore,  soft, pretty as a concubine, or other terms that get accross the fact that you are able to recognise  that most people would consider him hansome without giving the impession that your character is attracted to him.

Magazines put out lists of the 100 most beautiful people and the sexiest man alive.  You may not agree with their choices, but most of the people that make the lists are conventionally attractive.  It would be surprising to see Marylin Manson in full make up on one of those lists, regardless if it was a conventional magazine from the USA,  China or Zambia, because Manson's "look" isn't considered beautiful in any culture I know of.  Some sub-cultures may find him attractive, but nobody is calling him a pretty boy.


AC