data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a1fcc/a1fcc13d684d0191cb4601e87fa30bdc980b0f13" alt=""
(03-17-2015, 03:52 PM)Flickering Ember Wrote:Accctuallyyyyy, that's pretty much the height difference between my friend and his sister, not to mention it's very similar to that between myself and some of my co-workers (Four foot nine?! GOOD LORD WOMAN). It's not all that uncommon! It's not really wise to just declare something as exceptional or an outlier without knowing for sure!(03-17-2015, 03:33 PM)Sylas Wrote:
SEXUAL DIMORPHISM!
Okay, but real talk just to head off some of the witty rebuttals. I know that using humans is a poor example, but things like sexual dimorphism to an extreme degree does exist in the real world. Is it a shame that they can't give each race a dramatic height slider? Sure! But they need to keep the silhouette of each race unique and size is a big part of that.
Female roegadyns DO have a dramatic height slider though. It is a one foot range versus 4/5 inches. Most races and genders only have a range of 4. So, it could be done and they could really appeal to some of the minority players like myself by just introducing a variety of options in the character screen. Here's hoping benchmark doesn't disappoint.
That picture bothers me a little. The folks in the picture are an exceptional couple as far as humans go. They are outliers and not the norm. Everyday real life humans aren't THAT sexual dimorphic. I find that in fantasy, that dimorphism is typically exaggerated. The picture, I don't feel, makes a strong case for Au Ra. I would say using animal species who already have sexual dimorphism as norm is a better example.
I do agree that using the animal species would be a better example though. It would also help them fill the 'bestial' quota.Â
In this case, the bestial features may not be muscles, sharp teeth or claws, but simply the tail, scales and the sexual dimorphism.