RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes

**Unnamed Mercenary** · **09-14-2015, 12:12 PM**

Show Content

Really big block of quoted text

(09-14-2015, 09:47 AM)LadyRochester Wrote:
(09-11-2015, 02:33 PM)Verad Wrote: This thread exists because RPers are spiteful, contrarian little shits who don't like being told what to do - but only if they're told to view a character positively.

There is no quibbling over "ugly." There is no quibbling over other vague descriptors that imply other informed traits like "sickly" or "plain." It is only when a player dares suggest a character is viewed in a positive fashion that players get their hackles up and start fleeing to the warm, inviting confines of subjectivity.

This is the wit thread, redux.

Except that it's not. Mental faculties are far less open to subjectivity than beauty. However, I am not going to argue about intelligence again, this is not the thread for it.

And yes, I do mean "ugly" characters as well. I saw a roleplayer once say their character was "ugly"without giving much context as to why, in fact, in game, they looked better looking than average. When I sent them a /tell asking why they considered their character "ugly", they basically responded "he has tiny eyes and a biggish nose."

Features that to me, and to people in general, are not enough to make a character "ugly". I am not treating a character as if they were unattractive when they are hardly described as such, and all you get is an "He's ugly" description.

Claiming subjectivity regarding positive traits is the only one that is truly problematic is frankly idiotic. Not every roleplayer that points this out is a bitter little shit.

Same thing goes for "good" and "evil" characters. I had roleplayers tell me their characters are incredibly evil when their actions are considered mildly questionable at best. Then get annoyed if my character doesn't act terrorized/intimidated by them. Is "evil" a positive trait now?

I speak of lazy description when people force their views upon others without truly baking up their claims. When they expect special treatment because their characters are "ugly" orÂ "beautiful" without backing it up. If something is subjective, regardless of it being positive or negative, a roelplayer should not expect others to bend backwards to cater to their beliefs. It's stupidly inconsiderate and lazy.

That's like me saying "Sasha Rochester is the ugliest, bitchiest, stupidest person in Eorzea! She also smells!" I can say it all I want, but if I gent angry when other roleplyers don't agree, I'm probably a bloody idiot. After all, roleplay is more about "show, don't tell." and being so vague with description makes your roleplay seem flat and boring.

(09-14-2015, 10:11 AM)LadyRochester Wrote: I'm a fairly new roleplayer myself, and I am far from perfect. However, my point stands, whether it is used with raw language or more "pretty" words. Expecting others to cater to you IS inconsiderate and lazy. This is not only how roleplay works, but also how life works. If you're hardly putting forth any effort, you shouldn't expect others to fall to their knees for you.Â

The reality is, if there is nos substance to your character, there will be no substance to your roleplay. I can't put it in nicer terms than this. When I first started in RP, I made a lot of Rookie mistakes I wish people had poined out to me instead of having to sit down and have to figure it out myself, to this day, I cringe at some of the posts I made.

Mind you, I started RPing little over a year ago. Granted, some people are not as open to criticism, and I do apologize for the language I used, my intention was not to harm or discourage other roleplayers from experimenting with styles. Ultimately, it's their choice as to how they roleplay.

Here's my view on this. This thread is basically asking the exact same thing as the wit thread. It ultimately comes down to "can a person RP something, whether a trait or skill, without actually validating it through RP?" And as many of the people in the last thread said and how many of the people in this thread have said, it depends.

It depends on the person RPing. It depends on the people they are RPing with. It depends on how all of those people view RP and judge what they feel is "good" RP. The only wrong way is to not try or to have no imagination. A story and only go so far if the characters are lacking, and a character can only go so far if their story is lacking. The larger a list of do's and don'ts becomes, the more intimidating and difficult it is to follow. Ultimately, it just ends up with people trying so hard to fit into the "community guidelines" that they stop writing characters for themselves. And then it becomes unfun.

How does one RP that their character is smart, beautiful, able to drive a car, ride a Chocobo, fight, use magic, or do whatever else they want to do? They try to write it to the best of their ability. For some people, that might actually be writing something like "my character is pretty," or "my character is ugly," or "my character is really smart, but ugly". If they think that's sufficient to describe the character, and the people they RP with are content with it, there really isn't much of a problem. If that same person later goes "how can I better show these aspects of my character," then it's a perfect time to sit down and think about the character's intelligence and how it's show, about what the character looks like and how that can be written and developed upon. The game only allows a characters to look a certain way.

Verad · **09-14-2015, 12:58 PM**

(09-14-2015, 09:47 AM)LadyRochester Wrote: That's like me saying "Sasha Rochester is the ugliest, bitchiest, stupidest person in Eorzea! She also smells!" I can say it all I want, but if I gent angry when other roleplyers don't agree, I'm probably a bloody idiot. After all, roleplay is more about "show, don't tell." and being so vague with description makes your roleplay seem flat and boring.

The thing is, you do that. Your RPC description makes it clear that players are meant to find Sasha Rochester both intelligent and physically attractive. Phrases like "blessed with a chest size and hips she adores to flaunt" make it clear that you believe your character to be, to put it academically, stacked like a brickhouse and attractive for it, and if people started reacting to your description as if she were flat as a board both ways and making a fool of herself for acting otherwise, I think you would be rather cross about it. Unless "blessed" is meant to suggest flatness is the attractive trait in Eorzea? The description is quite vague that way.

Likewise, acting as if there are wildly different definitions of attractiveness within the general body of roleplayers, such that one can't use vague descriptors like "beautiful" and not give people a pretty clear idea of what is going on with your character's looks, feels willfully obtuse rather than spiteful, as if you are ignoring that while there can be very broad ranges of difference in how people view certain appearances, there is still generally some common ground because of culturally received definitions of beauty. It's not as if players have such wildly divergent definitions of beauty that no one person can really understand what the other's is, with one player demanding nipples all over the face and the other demanding hair of cheese in order for looks to matter. But you're right - sometimes it's not spiteful, sometimes it's just dense.

Anyway, speaking of "show don't tell," you will find if you look through your description that about half of it contains adjectives that rely on culturally received definitions of what your character might look like - "elegant," "feminine," "provocatively," so forth. It's all pretty telly, and I'd like to see a more objective description provided before you go making aspersions about vague characterization. Speck in the eye and plank in one's own and such.

Vallerin Hortimont · **09-14-2015, 02:09 PM**

I like to set a believable baseline for my characters.

Anything extra I prefer to be added by those the character roleplays with, it feels more organic and rewarding that way.

LadyRochester · **09-14-2015, 02:37 PM**

(09-14-2015, 12:58 PM)Verad Wrote:
(09-14-2015, 09:47 AM)LadyRochester Wrote: That's like me saying "Sasha Rochester is the ugliest, bitchiest, stupidest person in Eorzea! She also smells!" I can say it all I want, but if I gent angry when other roleplyers don't agree, I'm probably a bloody idiot. After all, roleplay is more about "show, don't tell." and being so vague with description makes your roleplay seem flat and boring.

The thing is, you do that. Your RPC description makes it clear that players are meant to find Sasha Rochester both intelligent and physically attractive. Phrases like "blessed with a chest size and hips she adores to flaunt" make it clear that you believe your character to be, to put it academically, stacked like a brickhouse and attractive for it, and if people started reacting to your description as if she were flat as a board both ways and making a fool of herself for acting otherwise, I think you would be rather cross about it. Unless "blessed" is meant to suggest flatness is the attractive trait in Eorzea? The description is quite vague that way.

Likewise, acting as if there are wildly different definitions of attractiveness within the general body of roleplayers, such that one can't use vague descriptors like "beautiful" and not give people a pretty clear idea of what is going on with your character's looks, feels willfully obtuse rather than spiteful, as if you are ignoring that while there can be very broad ranges of difference in how people view certain appearances, there is still generally some common ground because of culturally received definitions of beauty. It's not as if players have such wildly divergent definitions of beauty that no one person can really understand what the other's is, with one player demanding nipples all over the face and the other demanding hair of cheese in order for looks to matter. But you're right - sometimes it's not spiteful, sometimes it's just dense.

Anyway, speaking of "show don't tell," you will find if you look through your description that about half of it contains adjectives that rely on culturally received definitions of what your character might look like - "elegant," "feminine," "provocatively," so forth. It's all pretty telly, and I'd like to see a more objective description provided before you go making aspersions about vague characterization. Speck in the eye and plank in one's own and such.

I have not edited her physical description in months, all I have worked on are relationships, but now that you point it out, I can perfectly change it. By "elegant" I mean generally expensive, richly colored, well-fitted and almost aristocratic clothing. It's not difficult for people to comprehend that. Now, by "Femenine" I mean classically femenine traits, in Eorzea there has never been any implication that they differed culturally as to what they considered feminine to what we do in this world ("Girly" clothing such as skirts, dresses, sparkling accessories and the like). "Provocative" implies clothing that is somewhat revealing, something that does not really vary unless the concept of "provocative" to some is showing ankles.

You can claim femininity, provocativeness, and elegance are subjective, but they really are not when it comes to building an idea based on Japanese/Western norms, which truthfully don't vary much. "Beautiful" or "Ugly" deal with a wider spectrum. You can't deny that.

People might find "Elegance", "femininity", and "Provocative" clothing unattractive, as they signify more specific traits than simply "Beautiful". I had people roleplay as if my character looked like a horse, and while I might disagree OOC, I'm not going to cry about it, and I am not going to force their character to find mine beautiful because I disagree. It's their choice, their taste, it's up to them.

I can mention that she's "generously endowed", but that implies she has gigantic breasts, which she does not, and mentioning her cup size and her exact measurements seems like something someone would do to attract the wrong kind of roleplayers.

Ignacius · **09-14-2015, 03:15 PM**

Again, the best thing to do here is to try to make your appearance reflect your character. Â If your character is "unkempt" it tends to mean he sleeps outside or is unconcerned with personal hygiene. Â But the most fun you can have is if you say your character has, "Eyes that seem to piece, unblinking." Â People KNOW what that is, and whether they find it attractive or ugly isn't even the point anymore. Â They know something is strange and not particularly earthly about your character, and it'll say more than even "beautiful" will.

Gabineaux · **09-14-2015, 08:53 PM**

Nevermind, not worth it. But lol just the same. Mod delete this pls.

Edda · **09-14-2015, 09:18 PM**

(09-14-2015, 02:37 PM)LadyRochester Wrote: I can mention that she's "generously endowed", but that implies she has gigantic breasts, which she does not, and mentioning her cup size and her exact measurements seems like something someone would do to attract the wrong kind of roleplayers.

...Shit.

[sup]There is nothing wrong with this. I'll have you know measurements are highly important when it comes to making tailored-to-fit clothing and is probably one of the most objective body descriptions in this world! Just saying.[/sup]

Caspar · **09-15-2015, 01:21 PM**

(09-14-2015, 09:18 PM)Edda Wrote:
(09-14-2015, 02:37 PM)LadyRochester Wrote: I can mention that she's "generously endowed", but that implies she has gigantic breasts, which she does not, and mentioning her cup size and her exact measurements seems like something someone would do to attract the wrong kind of roleplayers.

...Shit.

[sup]There is nothing wrong with this. I'll have you know measurements are highly important when it comes to making tailored-to-fit clothing and is probably one of the most objective body descriptions in this world! Just saying.[/sup]

That post did remind me of your eloquent prototype wiki.

Hm, but I think concrete descriptors are more useful to me, often, than a generalized impression. But that just determines how much I need to infer about the character's looks.
I can draw some stereotypical impressions judging from the feel of the rp and descriptive language used. While they conform to convention, it's still usable shorthand for what is beautiful, by invoking modern stereotypical portrayals of attractiveness.

Verad · **09-15-2015, 03:18 PM**

(09-14-2015, 02:37 PM)LadyRochester Wrote: I have not edited her physical description in months, all I have worked on are relationships, but now that you point it out, I can perfectly change it. By "elegant" I mean generally expensive, richly colored, well-fitted and almost aristocratic clothing. It's not difficult for people to comprehend that. Now, by "Femenine" I mean classically femenine traits, in Eorzea there has never been any implication that they differed culturally as to what they considered feminine to what we do in this world ("Girly" clothing such as skirts, dresses, sparkling accessories and the like). "Provocative" implies clothing that is somewhat revealing, something that does not really vary unless the concept of "provocative" to some is showing ankles.

You can claim femininity, provocativeness, and elegance are subjective, but they really are not when it comes to building an idea based on Japanese/Western norms, which truthfully don't vary much. "Beautiful" or "Ugly" deal with a wider spectrum. You can't deny that.

People might find "Elegance", "femininity", and "Provocative" clothing unattractive, as they signify more specific traits than simply "Beautiful". I had people roleplay as if my character looked like a horse, and while I might disagree OOC, I'm not going to cry about it, and I am not going to force their character to find mine beautiful because I disagree. It's their choice, their taste, it's up to them.

I can mention that she's "generously endowed", but that implies she has gigantic breasts, which she does not, and mentioning her cup size and her exact measurements seems like something someone would do to attract the wrong kind of roleplayers.

I need you to explain what you mean by the following phrases:

"Richly colored" Which colors are determined to be rich, and how do you identify them as such? Supposing I have a different definition of richness in coloration, or view richness in color as a mark of lacking elegance, and instead see it as a mark of gaudiness.

"Expensive" - how do I know that the clothing is expensive? If I see this clothing, how do you know I am qualified to identify whether the clothing is expensive or if it just looksÂ expensive and is actually a cheap fake? This feels very presumptuous of you, as if you are enforcing a judgment value on my character.

"Well-fitted" - Can you explain further what you mean by well, and "fitted?" What are the cultural connections between fittedness and one's attire, and how does that necessarily mean elegance when clothing that may not be well-fitted may also be referred to as elegant?

"Almost aristocratic" - Again, how am I supposed to know it's almostÂ aristocratic? That's a rather fine-grained distinction to make, and you're again presuming quite a bit about my character's ability to make that judgment. And for that matter, which aristocracy?

As for what we do and do not consider feminine, I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by "classical" femininity, because that would presume there's some reasonable baseline for femininity, and just saying something is "feminine" is, again, presumptuous.

If you found all of the above needlessly pedantic and argumentative for the sake of it, that's how I feel every time I see a thread on an RP forum kvetching about "How dare they say their character is just 'beautiful' or 'ugly'! They can't control my reactions like that!" Spiteful, useless contrarianism, the lot of it.

So yes, I can deny that there is such broad variations in beauty that "beauty" is insufficient as a trait, I will deny it, and I continue to deny it, because you are using exactly the same logic I am using to say that these other vague descriptors are somehow not reallyÂ vague descriptors because everyone already knows what you mean. The fact that you don't apply this to another vague descriptor like "beautiful" is not a sign of correctness; merely inconsistency.

So, again, this is the wit thread redux. It is the same thread in topic, it is the same thread in OP, and it is the same thread in purpose.

Melkire · **09-18-2015, 10:01 PM**

[Admin Hardhat]

Thread has been locked upon original poster's request; moderator team discussed this at some length and came to a consensus. While it seems that the discussion has run its course, if anyone wishes to continue they are free to open up a new thread in the same vein.

Thank You.

[/Admin Hardhat]

« Next Oldest \| Next Newest »
Thread Closed Pages (5): « Previous 1 2 3 4 5

If beauty is subjective, who defines the beauty of your character?

RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes