Body Types and "Beauty": Or, What's With All the Skinny Angels?


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 88 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Now, I can't claim to be an expert on monsters. I only own, like, two Bestiaries. So maybe I've missed some art. But it's not like I don't keep up. And what I've noticed is that whenever a fey, celestial or pretty much any monster is described as being "beautiful" (especially using words like "unearthly"), the art always seems to depict a humanoid of the same standardized body type.

I think this is interesting. Looking at the first Bestiary, for instance, it's a mass of skinny women (and a few men). That seems unbalanced to me.

Is there art I'm missing? And if not, speaking critically here, do you guys think this is an errant statement? I think it goes without saying that "beauty" is entirely subjective, and that no one of the three most common body types is superior to the rest. I personally get the sense that a small pool of artists with specialized opinions on what constitutes "attractiveness" have skewed the art in a particular direction.

So, thoughts? Opinions? Those four angry guys who always show up to these sorts of threads to complain about how politically correct I am?


Here's what I'm talking about with "body types", by the way.

And here's a handy picture.

Silver Crusade Contributor

6 people marked this as a favorite.

If I recall correctly, the muse (from Bestiary 5) is an example of attempts to correct this trend. But... it's still quite prevalent, yes.

Part of this is almost certainly artist assumption - the same reason we had slightly copper-toned Ekujae for a few years. Unless you are exceedingly specific, you get what the artist assumes you want... in many cases, skinny white people.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm with Kalindlara on this one - it's likely not so much artist opinion on what constitutes "attractiveness" as it is artist assumption of what their client is going to think constitutes "attractiveness". They've got to sell art, after all, and long conditioning has created a fairly set perception of what's supposed to be attractive in Western culture (even if it's not actually the opinion of a good portion of Western culture's constituents).

It is still fairly prevalent, although not quite universal - the art that depicts Shelyn in Inner Sea Gods, for instance, shows her with a pronounced hourglass figure (lots of chest and hips, even a bit of a tummy). And for what it's worth, she's considered to be one of the archetypes of beauty, being its patron deity. Still only does so much to combat the trend, but it's a start.


I think the art for the muse is interesting. She seems to be modeled off of the stereotypical "opera singer", as in, the one who colloquially signals that the opera is over. I'm trying to put this tactfully, but they didn't really draw her face to mirror the descriptive text. Her expression is sort of...unflattering. Comedic, even.

"This beautiful, woman moves with impossible grace, a knowing smile on her lips." Instead of grace, we get her standing still—again, like an opera singer. Instead of a knowing smile, we get the kinda goofy-looking singing.

What I'm trying to say is I get the sense the artist just sort of heard "large woman" and took away some of the muse's dignity as a result. But maybe I'm off-base.

I'm not quite prepared to cut "artist bias" away from "artist assumptions". The assumptions are crafted from the bias.

Silver Crusade Contributor

"Attempts" is a key word when discussing the muse art. I think you're on point with the "large woman" theory.

Meanwhile, the muse that appears in the entice fey art is right back to standard.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

To be clear, I'm not in here to play the blame game. It's not about "This is Paizo's fault!" or "This is the artist's fault!" Guys, we all know it's Cosmo's fault, but that's not the point. I just think there should be conversation about this.

I've long wished that Paizo would take a firmer hand with its artists and really push back against the dreadful assumptions some of them make. "Oh, well, by the time we realized they misunderstood the character, they'd already drawn her. what can y'doooo" gets kind of old as an apology.

Silver Crusade Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This can also run into the Carrion Crown problem - sometimes there's not time for an artist's do-over. Printers gotta print. It'd be nice if there were enough of a lead time to account for this, but I don't know the details of Paizo's business... that might not be feasible. Still, it's good to keep attention on the issue.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I know that, when I've written art orders, I've tried to be very clear about things like this. And even then, it doesn't always work.

Wardens of Sulfur Gulch:
The art for Isirah Tana ended up way more light-skinned than I'd intended.


I figured it was a time constraint, but you would think that after the first few times, Paizo would start looking for strong solutions. Like, having the artist check in periodically, or employing some sort of strike system to make sure the artists take the instructions seriously. But maybe that wouldn't really work. What do I know? :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rennaivx wrote:

I'm with Kalindlara on this one - it's likely not so much artist opinion on what constitutes "attractiveness" as it is artist assumption of what their client is going to think constitutes "attractiveness". They've got to sell art, after all, and long conditioning has created a fairly set perception of what's supposed to be attractive in Western culture (even if it's not actually the opinion of a good portion of Western culture's constituents).

It is still fairly prevalent, although not quite universal - the art that depicts Shelyn in Inner Sea Gods, for instance, shows her with a pronounced hourglass figure (lots of chest and hips, even a bit of a tummy). And for what it's worth, she's considered to be one of the archetypes of beauty, being its patron deity. Still only does so much to combat the trend, but it's a start.

Does the god or goddess of beauty actually need to be "pretty"? Shelyn also embodies art, but she's not a living paint brush.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

On an unrelated note, Kalindlara, I think you're one of the most prolific posters I know who doesn't have a profile. It makes you very mysterious!


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Rennaivx wrote:

I'm with Kalindlara on this one - it's likely not so much artist opinion on what constitutes "attractiveness" as it is artist assumption of what their client is going to think constitutes "attractiveness". They've got to sell art, after all, and long conditioning has created a fairly set perception of what's supposed to be attractive in Western culture (even if it's not actually the opinion of a good portion of Western culture's constituents).

It is still fairly prevalent, although not quite universal - the art that depicts Shelyn in Inner Sea Gods, for instance, shows her with a pronounced hourglass figure (lots of chest and hips, even a bit of a tummy). And for what it's worth, she's considered to be one of the archetypes of beauty, being its patron deity. Still only does so much to combat the trend, but it's a start.

Does the god or goddess of beauty actually need to be "pretty"? Shelyn also embodies art, but she's not a living paint brush.

Okay then behold Heathansson, God of Adorable Little Puppies.

Silver Crusade Contributor

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
On an unrelated note, Kalindlara, I think you're one of the most prolific posters I know who doesn't have a profile. It makes you very mysterious!

Never really thought about it, I suppose. ^_^


Then you are the anti-me. I probably change my profile every few months. Eventually it'll settle. Maybe.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
On an unrelated note, Kalindlara, I think you're one of the most prolific posters I know who doesn't have a profile. It makes you very mysterious!
Never really thought about it, I suppose. ^_^

The less you know about a person, the less likely you are to prejudge what they say, and or more likely to evaluate their words by their words.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

That's probably why I have to put so much effort into the profile. ;D

Sovereign Court

I don't think renegade artists are to blame I think our society has largely been wired this way. The fight is much bigger than you may realize. I think its worth pointing these things out though. Hopefully Paizo takes notice.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Isabelle Lee wrote:

I know that, when I've written art orders, I've tried to be very clear about things like this. And even then, it doesn't always work.

** spoiler omitted **

:(

*offers hugs*

One of the reasons i supply a bunch of references to all my commissions.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

*makes mental note to be more aware of body sizes for future commissions*


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Thank you for bringing this up, KC. However, on the flip side of beautiful curvy/overweight women and men (I'm not disagreeing with you, we need way more art for this!), I feel like we also need more art for women who actually look like they have 18 Strength. Blizzard hit this right on the mark, in my opinion: Zarya looks like she could kick Conan's ass six ways from Sunday, but I know no one who's attracted to women deny that she is drop-dead gorgeous. Amiri is a step in the right direction, but I still think that she looks a bit too waifish for somebody with immense enough strength to wield that giant sword.

Wow, that was a mess of grammar. But hopefully you get my point.

Scarab Sages

It's a very possible thing to be more proactive about broader art images. WotC nailed it with the 5e player's handbook


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I found the art in the 5e PHB to be extremely traditional. What do you see as challenging that?


I think the fact that it actually armored the women in it is what he's talking about ;P At least Pathfinder is getting a lot better with that


Referring to the angels, it probably ties into the classic "Beauty equals goodness" trope. This used to be beleived as genuine principle, that beautiful people were touched by god, and ugly people were cursed by him. Though you might hope we live in more enlightened times, there's still this undercurrent that permeates people's views.

Since angels are meant to be spiritual beings, it leads to the idea that their souls are pure and untouched, so their appearance reflects their inner beauty. Meanwhile, demons and devils and the such are meant to look hideous and ugly, to accurately reflect their twisted souls. And even the supposedly 'beautiful' demons and devils only put on a guise in order to lure mortals.

Though perhaps I miss the point, that all these angles subscribe to western beauty concepts, not just that they're all beautiful. Not sure there's much to say about that that I haven't already said.

Incidentally, have any angels been shown to resemble some of the more eldritch forms they describe in the Bible? I'm talking four heads, of lion, ox, man, and eagle, with two sets of wings. Or eye-covered flaming chariot wheels. Or a single head surrounded by eye-covered wings.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Realistically it's "the artists guess incorrectly what the people commissioning the piece actually want, and there's not time to fix it" problem. Being that a bias against fatness is (now) just culturally programmed (in Europe, during the Renaissance full figured women were considered beautiful, sexy, and healthier, so this is pretty much subjective and due entirely to enculturation) it's conceivable that it just wasn't considered. Even in progressive circles a bias against fat people is much more acceptable than most other biases.

I do say though, the game could really go for more angels that resemble the platonic form of "Mom" or even Santa, to go with a seasonally appropriate reference.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We are biological creatures first, members of a culture second. A healthy body makes everyone more attractive. We are particularly sensitive to the waist/hip ratio, but it is far from the only trait. Long necks are apparently seen as attractive for women across cultures. Newborns react measurably differently to classically attractive people than less classically attractive people. A very large part of it is nature, not all nurture.

Chubbiness as attractive in the middle ages is because markers for high status have always been attractive, and starvation and disease was far more common then than now.

Of course, you can't derive an ought from an is.

Liberty's Edge

The skinny silhouettes shown in the body types look elongated to me. Like rays of light given humanoid shape. They also resonate with weightlessness and hovering or flying which are things often associated with higher spiritual realms

While bloated heavy bodies associate easily with weight, density and matter which are often linked with the lower spiritual realms

Note how we talk of higher being better and superior/above lower, even here. And in fact even in the representation of the outer planes

So there is indeed a trope at work here but I am not sure it is only linked to the body types of human beings


Beauty perception is based on health rather than culture you say.......

Liberty's Edge

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Beauty perception is based on health rather than culture you say.......

Cultures evolve based on the environment and living conditions of the community

Being healthy, or more precisely, being better suited for survival, will likely depend on your environment and living conditions

So it is not a surprise that different cultures have different takes on what being healthy and beautiful entails

In other words both points are not actually 100% opposed

Liberty's Edge

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Beauty perception is based on health rather than culture you say.......

"The younger generations of males in Mauritania now see fattening negatively."

From your link.


Crisischild wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Beauty perception is based on health rather than culture you say.......

"The younger generations of males in Mauritania now see fattening negatively."

From your link.

I believe that goes to show that with the change of culture, perspective of beauty changes.

Another example was mentioned up-thread of how rennaisance-era beauty was more plump [though certainly not to the extreme of Mauritania-past.]


Referred Wikipedia article, references removed wrote:

Leblouh (lebluh) is the practice of force-feeding girls from as young as five to teenagers, in Mauritania, Western Sahara, and southern Morocco, where obesity was traditionally regarded as desirable. Especially prevalent in rural areas and having its roots in Tuareg tradition, leblouh is practiced to increase chances of marriage in a society where high body volume used to be a sign of wealth. The synonym gavage comes from the French term for the force-feeding of geese to produce foie gras.

The practice goes back to the 11th century, and has been reported to have made a significant comeback after a military junta took over the country in 2008.

Older women called "fatteners" force the young girls to consume enormous quantities of food and liquid, inflicting pain on them if they do not eat and drink. One way of inflicting pain is to pinch a limb between two sticks. A six-year-old might typically be forced to drink 20 litres (4.4 imp gal; 5.3 US gal) of camel's milk, and eat two kilos of pounded millet mixed with two cups of butter, every day. Although the practice is an abuse, mothers claim there is no other way to secure a good future for their children.

The younger generations of males in Mauritania now see fattening negatively.

Okay. What in this says that I am wrong? The girls are fattened to give them a better future, in an area often beset by famine, in a culture adapted to this, and the practice has had a resurge now that a military junta has taken over (which means less food available). The fatness is directly stated to be a "sign of wealth" in the article, just as I said. Also note that "the younger generations of males in Mauritania now see fattening negatively".

Please, argue your view, but you have to do better than that. What you have managed to show is support that appreciation of fatness as a sign of wealth (which is generally also attractive) is cultural, not that the basic concept of attractive = healthy body is cultural.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The fact that "how attractive/unattractive" something that changes with time and geography does pretty much underline that there is a significant subjective element.

Plus, getting back to the initial point that we're talking about Pathfinder, in a lot of ways Pathfinder is a lot closer to Renaissance Europe than the 21st century, so shouldn't the residents of Golarion reflect those standards of beauty and thus angels should appear a little more cherubic, as it were?

Plus, it's sort of arrogant that you can just look at a person and see how healthy they are. I mean, the existence of "fat" athletes pretty much shows it (Mirna Valerio, for example, is an ultramarathoner who still weighs 250+, and if anybody is "in shape" it's ultramarathoners.)


Say, billionaires rarely, even at very advanced age, seem to have problems getting very classically attractive partners. It's even been stated that the most attractive part of a man is his wallet. It has been stated that "power is the ultimate aphrodisiac". It is clear that wealth and power make someone attractive through factors entirely divorced from physical appearance. Why does the changing spectrum of "stuff that marks you as wealthy and powerful" say one whit about whether a healthy physique makes someone attractive? It doesn't.

And to answer the issue about being able to tell if someone IS healthy, that has never been the point. Someone might have diabetes and look perfectly healthy. Or cancer. The point is that if their body conforms to certain correlations (such as waist hip ratio of 0,7 for women), people are genetically coded to SEE them as healthy - and thus attractive.

Community & Digital Content Director

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed a post and the responses to it. Let's keep off-hand commentary about the latest US election out of this discussion. Thanks!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's also a huge difference between "physically healthy" and the distinction between ecto/endo/mesomorphs.


True. But what is seen as attractive varies a lot less, and yes, certain body types are favoured in that way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The thing is though, "what body types are favored by people living on Golarion" is something that's a lot easier for the designers of the game to fiat to be different from those on earth than something like "the existence of dragons" which we all take for granted.

So there's really no reason we shouldn't have pudgy angels, swole angels, gaunt angels, etc.. The standard for angelic beauty should be close to "someone sees this is beautiful" (that is, it is a projection of the platonic form of beauty) than "everyone sees this as beautiful."

I mean, they're angels for Dwarves and Elves and Ratfolk and Catfolk and Grippli too, and what all of those kinds of people tend to find beautiful should be different. Like it would be weird if the ideal notion of beauty for catfolk or ratfolk lacks fur, or the ideal notion of beauty for dwarves was tall and skinny.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I'll remind everyone that ecto/endo/mesomorphs are all perfectly healthy, natural and attractive body types.

I don't know how someone managed to bring up the election and D&D editions in the same thread, but be careful, guys. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

PossibleCabbage actually raises an interesting point, at least for me. In my opinion, angels and other outsiders who are supposed to be beautiful aren't going to be universally beautiful. It's logical that they actually look at least somewhat different to different people. An angel would look different to somebody who prefers curvier girls compared to somebody who likes muscular guys, or a traditional, stodgy dwarf, or a tribal catfolk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That is not how they are described, though of course you could make a case for it. It would be a magical effect, which means they could lose that ability in an anti-magic field, for example.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Except its not really all that subjective or limited to Western standards.Just look at the winners of beauty pageants across the world over the past century:
http://www.eonline.com/news/607968/no-more-bikinis-miss-world-pageant-bans- swimsuit-portion-of-competition

So not only do the standards of beauty differ little in between developed nations, but the differ little between genders:
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/94/1/102/

Certain physical qualities are just associated with good health and better suited for various tasks. So it is only expected humans have adapted to find these qualities attractive and in turn, adapted to give off this appearance for a higher chance of mating. Just look at the distribution of fat between the sexes.

Ectomorph, endomorph, and mesomorph (in otherwords, somatotype) was a theory developed by a psychologist, not a biologist, in the 1940s and rooted in constitutional psychology and eugenics. http://www.cbmh.ca/index.php/cbmh/article/viewFile/928/923

Even if you still hold that there are large populations of these differing body types, you must admit that this isn't an adaptation based off of sexual selection, they are adaptations based off of diet. The reason why Samoans have a higher rate of obesity isn't because they like their women large, it's for the same reason why Native Americans are more likely to develop type II diabetes or why the majority of the world is lactose-intolerant. Neither does bringing up how common each one is carries much relevance. Beauty never was based off of what is the most common.


We could go on about all the scientific theories with unpleasant origins, and we'd be here all day, too. In this case, it's shorthand for three common body types. Is the existence of those body types really so controversial we have to get bogged down disputing them?

Also, I never said standards of beauty were cultural (though they frequently are). They are subjective. Unless you're trying to argue that the results of beauty pageants speak for the entire species's preferences?


And since the vast majority of men and women, respectively, do find the same general physical traits to be more attractive than the alternatives, national beauty pageants across the world result in rather similar winners. Subjective they certainly are, but what people subjectively find attractive is very solidly impacted by biology. Making it decently relevant to talk about universal standard of beauty.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

We could go on about all the scientific theories with unpleasant origins, and we'd be here all day, too. In this case, it's shorthand for three common body types. Is the existence of those body types really so controversial we have to get bogged down disputing them?

Also, I never said standards of beauty were cultural (though they frequently are). They are subjective. Unless you're trying to argue that the results of beauty pageants speak for the entire species's preferences?

Some things do appear to be pretty objective measures of attractiveness: facial symmetry, for example.


Of course in a fantasy world, there's even less reason to expect universal standards of beauty. Even to the extent there are biological effects, different races will have different ones.

1 to 50 of 88 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Body Types and "Beauty": Or, What's With All the Skinny Angels? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.