Different standards for attractiveness in D&D

[Darius Kane]

What in your opinion are the standards for attractiveness of different races? For example what is considered attractive in an orc (male or female) in orc society? (Note, what I mean is appearance.)

I know it's more a "Roleplaying Games" forum type of thread, but I'm only interested in D&D races, that's why I posted it here.

[Namfuak]

What in your opinion are the standards for attractiveness of different races? For example what is considered attractive in an orc (male or female) in orc society? (Note, what I mean is appearance.)

I know it's more a "Roleplaying Games" forum type of thread, but I'm only interested in D&D races, that's why I posted it here.

For orcs, obviously males are going to be attractive based on their prowess in battle and strength, with probably some association with how they look (which may or may not be based on things humans find attractive - they might find pronounced brows and scars attractive, for example). I imagine that female orcs will be dependent on the setting - the "default" assumption would likely be a patriarchal society, where women are valued based on their looks and ability to have children rather than their strength, but it could be different. If in your setting orc women are just as likely to be soldiers (or expected to defend the home, like vikings), her ability to fight, if not necessarily brute strength, would likely be a big factor. If the society was more matriarchal, where the leader was a woman and men were seen as the defenders and providers for the purpose of protecting the women while they ruled, it might be that women are valued for their wisdom and intelligence, as well as their looks.

Of course, in dwarven society, the main standard of attractiveness is the length and beauty of the individual's beard. Regardless of gender.

[Andezzar]

Of course, in dwarven society, the main standard of attractiveness is the length and beauty of the individual's beard. Regardless of gender.I don't think female dwarves from Greyhawk or Faerun have beards. They should though.

[hamishspence]

There are Faerun novels with female dwarves, that mention them being bearded.

3rd ed and later works tend to depict them as beardless though.

[Darius Kane]

Men can have beards. Most don't. It's the same with dwarven women. They can, but some don't.

[Andezzar]

I don't know if that is true globally and we don't know either if that is true for dwarven women.

The PHB only mentions the beards of male dwarves:
Dwarf men value their beards highly and groom them very carefully.There is no mention that dwarf women have significant facial hair. And then there is this rule that says unless it is mentioned differently in the books use the way it works in the real world (can't find the rule at the moment). So I assume that dwarven women have about as much facial hair as human women and that facial hair on women is not considered attractive.

[Ace Nex]

Charisma is a persons likability and ability to convince others to do what you want, but not their attractiveness. Aside from that it's generally up to the person DMing, and while orcs have a CHA hit, that shouldn't decrease their overall attractiveness. It's just a different culture with different values, which values strength over politics. Some DMs run orcish woman a servant background characters, while others make it a more equal society. Ultimately, it's up to you.

[Man on Fire]

This is a very complicated issue, for simple reason that our perception of atractivness is strongly grounded in out evolutional history. Heck, the idea of copules is an evolutional product. You won't really be able to understand what other races should percive as attractive, until you will think through how they came to be and what had shaped them to be how they are and most importantly, how their typical subconcious works. Here are some examples of how human subconciousness works in reproductive regard:

Let us look at the reasons why, according to evolutionary psychology, men like big-breasted blondes. As we get older, your hair color starts fading, until they start graying. But blonde hair always seems lighter than other colors, so blondes always look younger. As women grow older, their breasts starts to drop. Bigger breasts seems firm much longer than smaller, so women with larger breasts look younger. Men are evolutionally programmed to preffer younger women, because younger means she can give birth to more babies before hitting menopause. And reproduction is one of the goals of all our evolutionary programming (the other one is survival). Same reasons may be applied to some commonly understood signs of male attractivness - younger male is going to be better defender of the children.

This one would probably be still true for other races, but the sings of youth should be different, because of different biology. If we have race who grows in size their entire life, say dragons, then they should find smaller females more attractive, because it mean they're younger and can produce mroe children through their life. That is asuming dragons go through menopause, because if they don't, this entire line of thinking is out of the window and replaced with something else.

Of course it is possible to be chating here - we do it with fake breasts and make-up, with dying our hair and other stuff. In setting with magic it goes much more complicated.

Then we get into things like handicap - thendency for some to make themselves look more attractive via significantly decreasing their ability of survival. Look at peacocks - they have large paws so they can show they are strong enough to survive with such huge handicap. Peacock is saying "I'm so good I can afford this". Female peacock sees this as a signal that this male is strong and his children will be strong enough to survive too. The same mechanism lies on human thendency of showing off how rich they are. We don't need huge houses and expensive cars, but we buy them to show off other gender we can afford them. When other gender sees us riding lamborgini, wearing Armani and living in a penthouse, they think we clearly have enough money to support them as a partner and our eventual children.

The same way Orc female may be more attractive if she is wearing neckale from human skulls, because male orc may see it as sing of strength, so he wil lthink her children shall inhereit her strong genes and will be able to survive harsh style of orc life. Or Dwarf going into battle without shield may be seen as more attractive - dwarven females will subconciously think that if he survived so many battle without a shield, then it means he is stronger than his shield-using peers, so his children will be stronger and have better chance of survival.

And then we come to magic. Who is hotter - Elf or the same Elf as wizard blowing up a castle with magic? The latter shows, that he isn't only physically attractive, but also has vast power, he can use to support and defend his mate, and eventual offsprings (and, depending on the setting, that his children shall inhereit his power).

Also, we have sexual dymorphism for a reason, there is not one why Elves and Dwarves of btoh genders should look the same. Nice quote from Fionavar Tapestry comes in handy here:


She could never have explained rationally why the presence of a Dwarf woman should surprise her so much, why she'd assumed, without ever giving it a moment's thought, that the females among the Dwarves should look like... oh, beardless, stocky equivalents of fighting men like Matt and Brock. After all, she herself didn't much resemble Coll of Taerlindel or Dave Martyniuk. At least on a good day she didn't! Neither did the woman who had come for her. A couple of inches shorter than Matt Sören, she was slim and graceful, with wide-set dark eyes and straight black hair hanging down her back.

Then we have species who don't form copules, which have build huge sexual dymorphism and are ofthen fighting for females.

These are only small factors we need to look into when thinking how other races would understand what is attractive. I would recommend reading Morris Desmond's Naked Monkey for ideas.

PS: I just hope this isn't against forum rules.

[Urpriest]

The Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, page 10:


Some female dwarves of Faerun can grow beards too, often passing as males among the nondwarves of the surface lands. Dwarven women may choose to shave their beards to match human-style expectations of beauty, while others glory in luxurious plaited beards that match their hair or wear sharply cut goatees.

Just to settle that argument. FR is the preeminent bearded-dwarf-women setting. The book also has the Silverbeard spell, that gives whoever casts it a giant silver beard.

[hamishspence]

Isn't that spell in Magic of Faerun, not FRCS?

[Andezzar]

The book also has the Silverbeard spell, that gives whoever casts it a giant silver beard.It's especially hilarious if a female elf or a kobold casts the spell.

Thanks Urpriest for the quote on bearded female dwarves. The artwork always led me to believe WotC made 50% of the dwarves beardless.

[JusticeZero]

Like everywhere, it varies from place to place. As a rule, whatever appearance in that area it is that takes the most upkeep tends to be considered attractive. In an area that is wracked with famine, fat is attractive; in a place where calorie-rich and nutrient-poor food is abundant, thin-ness is attractive; in a place where the norm is hard physical labor and protien-rich food, scrawny is attractive; in a place where physical labor is almost unheard of, lots of muscle is attractive.

[Seharvepernfan]

but not their attractiveness.

I get so tired of hearing this.

IT'S RIGHT IN THE PHB

page 9, Charisma.

[hamishspence]

"Attractive" doesn't necessarily mean "beautiful"

The PHB may mean it in the more social sense- they have the kind of personality and body language that draws people- attracts them, in short.

[Janus]

It wouldn't surprise me if, given the default races of 3.5, orcs and elves have some of the same measures of attractiveness as humans.

[Seharvepernfan]

"Charisma measures a character's force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness."

In my houserules, I dropped that last part, but the PHB is very clear about it.

[Man on Fire]

"Charisma measures a character's force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness."

In my houserules, I dropped that last part, but the PHB is very clear about.

Physical attractivness doesn't end on beauty, it's also directly depending on things like body language, style, way of speaking, behavior. Look at Hinata from Naruto - she is clearly beautiful, if sheer number of her fanarts online is any indicator, but her behavior implies low charisma and ofter her way of acting makes her seem less attractive.

[Norin]

Hmm, imagine how sexy a lvl 20 dread necro must be. Gaunt, pale, undead... But 20+++ cha says he's drop dead gorgeous. :smalleek:

[Seharvepernfan]

Hmm, imagine how sexy a lvl 20 dread necro must be. Gaunt, pale, undead... But 20+++ cha says he's drop dead gorgeous. :smalleek:

Hey, I don't write the books. :smallsigh:

[Shadowknight12]

My take on the matter is somewhat unorthodox. I go by the basis that everything can interbreed with everything (often with the aid of magic), but that each culture (and I don't mean race, I mean culture) has its specific variations on what is considered attractive or not. The reason I emphasise culture instead of race is because I tend to make my nations multiracial to maximise player freedom (so that they aren't forced to roleplay being from the Elven Kingdom every time they want to play an elf), which means that while each race may have its own twist on the standards of attractiveness, those standards get applied culturally.

Hence why a culture might value size and muscles (in both men and women) as attractive, and be composed of humans, halflings, elves, orcs and dwarves, each with their own spin on the cultural standard (so that means musclebound elves and halflings). Another might value slenderness and a rapier wit, so you have thin, graceful, educated orcs and dwarves.

I prefer not to go racial on standards of attractiveness, it tends to leave a bad taste in my mouth.

[Snowbluff]

Hmm, imagine how sexy a lvl 20 dread necro must be. Gaunt, pale, undead... But 20+++ cha says he's drop dead gorgeous. :smalleek:

It could just mean he looks really badass. That can qualify as attractive as well.

[Water_Bear]

In general, I'd probably say that humanoids across the board should value symmetry height and intelligence, if for no other reasons than they are decent indicators of both social status and genetic fitness; as the latter two are highly polygenic traits they are among the first to be affected by deprivation or harmful mutations, while asymmetry is tied into a lot of weird health issues. That's why, all else aside, those things ought to be more-or-less standard.

Other than that, anything else is up for grabs. Medieval Europeans liked more heavyset people with broad foreheads and pale skin. As most people know, footbinding was a big thing in China for centuries because small feet in women were considered a factor in marriageability. Someone with more historical knowledge could probably fill a text-wall with other examples of different traits people have been or are attracted to.

My main thing is this; everything should have a reason behind it, even if the Players never find out what it is. Attractiveness, whether based on sexual selection or cultural rules, is never arbitrary; there is a logic, however twisted, which explains why people value what they value. So don't add things without thinking.

[Urpriest]

Isn't that spell in Magic of Faerun, not FRCS?

You're right, I suppose I confused them since for a while they were the only FR books I had.

[Norin]

Hey, I don't write the books. :smallsigh:

Sure, i was just being silly. :smallwink:


It could just mean he looks really badass. That can qualify as attractive as well.

Of course. I guess with the badass look and all that power, you can pull a few (goth?) chicks. :smalltongue:

[Sith_Happens]

Physical attractivness doesn't end on beauty, it's also directly depending on things like body language, style, way of speaking, behavior. Look at Hinata from Naruto - she is clearly beautiful, if sheer number of her fanarts online is any indicator, but her behavior implies low charisma and ofter her way of acting makes her seem less attractive.

YMMV on that last part.:smallwink: Before anyone gets the wrong idea, it's a relatability thing, 'cause I'm practically that socially awkward myself.

[OverdrivePrime]

Hmm, imagine how sexy a lvl 20 dread necro must be. Gaunt, pale, undead... But 20+++ cha says he's drop dead gorgeous. :smalleek:

David. Frickin'. Bowie. (http://www.ryot.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/david-bowie-610x418.jpg) :smallamused:

[Regitnui]

Okay, going only by the pictures in the PHB:

Humans: Same as us. Slim curvy women, toned and tall men.

Halfling: Tall, thin women, stocky (for halflings) men.

Gnome: Similar to humans. I suspect ability to develop illusion magic may be desirable.

Half-Orc: Muscled for both genders, and hairy men. The heavy brow ridge may also be a factor.

Dwarf: Broad-shouldered and stocky men, stocky and full-figured women. Long beard/hair seems to be popular.

Half-elf: Combination of Human and Elf. Toned men with fine features, and thin but curved women.

Elf: Similar to humans, but long hair for both genders.

As for the Eberron races (I'm not familiar with races from other settings)

Changelings: Physical attractiveness has very little influence on shapeshifters, I think.

Shifters: Wiry strength and speed. The shapeshifter argument applies as well.

Kalashtar: They're practically human. 'Nuff sed.

Warforged: N/A

[Andezzar]

This is under the assumption that the specimens depicted are considered attractive by their respective races. We do not know that.

[Regitnui]

This is under the assumption that the specimens depicted are considered attractive by their respective races. We do not know that.

Of course. But if I may meta for a second, the races are designed by WotC to be attractive to humans (except for warforged), and very few players play an ugly character. Even characters with low charisma are more gruff and unlikeable than outright ugly. So I'd make the suggestion that those are at least fairly attractive specimens, if not outright idealised.

[Andezzar]

The problem is they are made semi attractive to human readers not necessarily to members of their own kind. The OP asked about the latter.

[Regitnui]

You could easily argue that since appearance is entirely cosmetic, you could play a horribly deformed character and still have a massive charisma stat.

There's no way of knowing, beyond guesswork and metathought, what a typical halfing finds attractive in a mate. However, I'd say that generally, since all these creatures are humanoid, and can pass for various kinds of humans, that they underwent a similar evolutionary path and therefore find the same things attractive that humans do, in all the variety humans do.

[Norin]

David. Frickin'. Bowie. (http://www.ryot.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/david-bowie-610x418.jpg) :smallamused:

Haha! Indeed. :smallbiggrin:

[Lazers etcetera]

Halflings find it sexually attractive for their partners to look like children.

This is why they are wrong and you should enslave the little perverts like they do in Cheliax.

[Raven777]

"Charisma measures a character's force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness."

If Charisma is a combination of all these factors, they do not need to all be present.

A Sorceress could have a high Charisma because of her force of personality and attractiveness, but still be relatively bad at persuasion or leadership.

Meanwhile, a Paladin could have high Charisma through an equally strong personality and the ability to lead and inspire hundreds, while being relatively plain looking.

[123456789blaaa]

Halflings find it sexually attractive for their partners to look like children.

This is why they are wrong and you should enslave the little perverts like they do in Cheliax.

Do you have a source for this?

[Phelix-Mu]

I like the Book of Erotic Fantasy rules for a seventh ability score-ish that rates attractiveness. I house-ruled some substantial expansions on the concept for my setting.

But, generally speaking, I just leave it up to the role playing of the players. If you want to justify that Cha 20 of the female sorceress by force of personality, dragon-like slit pupils, and a scar, that's fine. If it's cause she has impressive curvature, that's also fine. I tend to frown on excessively salacious characters, especially if it's disruptive. On the other hand, one of the best characters a player of mine had was a elven warlock that was very attractive and very sexually active, all of which added to the characterization and set up some interesting dynamics within the party.

[Darius Kane]

I'd like to remind some of you that this thread isn't about Charisma or evolution.

[Phelix-Mu]

A lot of what might be covered by "different standards for attractiveness" is more in the territory of the flavor of the DM's world. If a particular dwarven clan values the size of a person's hands as a mark of attractiveness, then so be it. There may be some kind of circumstance bonus to Charisma checks/Cha-based skill checks and so forth against such dwarves if your goliath has big hands, but it's pretty much down to the DM.

Since evolution as such is not an established part of the game world, that leaves us with cultural influences, but I really think there isn't much RAW for this.

BoEF is an excellent resource, and they go on at length about interracial modifiers to attractiveness scores, making what can only be described as "typical" generalizations about how elves and fey are broadly seen as beautiful, even to members of other races. How Tolkien-esque. But it bears on the question the OP has raised, as to whether the pinnacle of orc beauty is going to get any action in the dwarven city (leaving aside the standard interracial enmity that surrounds orcs on pretty much all sides).

[Water_Bear]

I'd like to remind some of you that this thread isn't about Charisma or evolution.

It's about D&D and sexual attraction, so it kind of is. :smalltongue:

But seriously, it's pretty tough to talk about what D&D species might consider sexy without considering either game-mechanical or RL sources of attractiveness. All you have to go on then is written fluff, which varies widely between settings (and sometimes even within them), or pure conjecture.

[Phelix-Mu]

But seriously, it's pretty tough to talk about what D&D species might consider sexy without considering either game-mechanical or RL sources of attractiveness. All you have to go on then is written fluff, which varies widely between settings (and sometimes even within them), or pure conjecture.

Mechanically, sexual attraction is hardly a thing. I'm trying to think of some reference somewhere, but nothing is coming to mind. Basically, unless two player's agree that it's a thing between two player characters, the player is pretty much entirely down to how the DM interprets "sexual attraction" for a specific npc or group of npcs. A variety of enchantment spells can be used to make this type of attraction more likely, but the same spells can often be used to do such regardless of racial or cultural morays (though with perhaps more limited success...or more hilarious results:smallwink:).

In my experience, DM ruling on this kind of very out-of-combat cultural stuff can be even less reliable than DM ruling on more native ground for the ruleset.

[Darius Kane]

It's about D&D and sexual attraction, so it kind of is.
I said nothing about sexual attraction.

Some settings might have races be different than the default (like Eberron or homebrew), but the setting neutral (or rather Greyhawk) fluff is what I'm talking about, for the sake of this discussion. I'm looking for anything "official", but just your opinions are also okay. Also, nothing stops you from talking about whatever you know about some other settings (I like FR and often play or run in it) or whatever you did in your homebrew setting. Just make it clear what you are talking about.

[Phelix-Mu]

I said nothing about sexual attraction.


Hmm. Well, I suppose you could make a distinction between attractiveness that is sexual in nature (or in origin), and that which is merely aesthetically pleasing. But I think you will find lots of overlap (especially among less sophisticated races). It's a pretty complicated subject, and I can only refer to the Races of X books for the scraps of what I've read that deal directly with cultural opinions and views on attraction, beauty, etc.

Particularly, I think we can break down attractiveness (sexual or aesthetic) into two broad categories:

- That which originates in appearance (or some other sensory cue like smell or sound)

- That which originates in actions or behavior (heroic behavior, acts of strength, confidence, etc, etc)

Some cultures may put more or less value on one or the other, but overall attractiveness for pretty much everyone depends on some combination of these two factors. Basically, handsome jerks are hot, but no one likes jerks, and the cold, calm psycho may be mysteriously attractive, despite having average looks.

Charisma does overlap heavily with many factors of attraction in 3e, and is an interesting ability score. Both Wisdom and Charisma depend heavily on interaction to gauge them, and Charisma is very hard to measure in a vacuum. Just so with attraction. I believe the truism is "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," and it's applicable in-game as well. Without someone or some people to agree that X or Y is attractive, then X or Y is just a meaningless trait.

By using Charisma as a gauge for attractiveness (among other things), the game approaches the situation in reverse. Your Charisma determines your attractiveness, now justify it with X or Y. Maybe there's a scar you want your character to have. It can be a sexy/intimidating scar, or it can be hideously disfiguring. Your Charisma can tell you which (or you can plan your Charisma to coincide with the character concept).

Overall, I don't particularly like incorporating appearance factors into Charisma, because appearance and judgement of it is INCREDIBLY subjective, to the point that the given mechanic for the six ability scores doesn't reflect that interactive nature of the trait. I believe the normal approach in 2e was that Charisma had nothing to do with appearance, but might have to do with behavioral stuff related to attractiveness. In 1e, I think there was an alternate rule for a Comeliness rating, but it was highly optional, from what I've read about it.

[Darius Kane]

Particularly, I think we can break down attractiveness (sexual or aesthetic) into two broad categories:

- That which originates in appearance (or some other sensory cue like smell or sound)

- That which originates in actions or behavior (heroic behavior, acts of strength, confidence, etc, etc)
Well, I did say pretty clearly in the OP that I'm talking about appearance.

As I said, this thread isn't about Charisma. Besides, Cha is a mental stat. The rules might say that it's (among other things) physical appearance (in 3.5) or just appearance (in PF), but that's bull, IMO.

[Azoth]

I have to agree with those that have said it depends on cultural standards. Think about today, the general populace (at least in the US), consider thin women with noticeable curves and a tan to be the ideal. In older times it was more plump with paler skin tones. We have also changed from a prefference towards brunets to blondes.

So, it really depends on what you view as the cultural norm for a race in any given area.

I, personally, envision for Orcs that a dark grey skin tone covered in scars and tribal tattoos, very tall and muscular frame to be what most Orc females would be attracted to. For Dwarves, I openly picture them using their beards like a peakock uses its tail plume. Elves...well they all look feminine to me so...the first one they can tell visually in a male?

[Snowbluff]

Well, I did say pretty clearly in the OP that I'm talking about appearance.

As I said, this thread isn't about Charisma. Besides, Cha is a mental stat. The rules might say that it's (among other things) physical appearance (in 3.5) or just appearance (in PF), but that's bull, IMO.

Yes it is.

Charisma forms the universal standard from the ones the game was written in. Orcs are ugly to other orcs, because they use human standards for beauty.

[Azoth]

Yes it is.

Charisma forms the universal standard from the ones the game was written in. Orcs are ugly to other orcs, because they use human standards for beauty.


How can they use human standards when the human standard of beauty isn't culturally universal? You can have a generalized standard based on a specific region's taste, but that is it. Even within a region's standards you have anomalies in the standard. You will always have someone who finds the standard unattractive and pprefers something else away from the norm.

So, again, you have varying standard. No person in the documented history of humanity has been considered universally attractive. So...yeah. Charisma can not represent one's appeal to all evenly.

[Phelix-Mu]

So, again, you have varying standard. No person in the documented history of humanity has been considered universally attractive. So...yeah. Charisma can not represent one's appeal to all evenly.

Well, Charisma is apparently not the OP's topic, rather just physical appearance, which the OP does not consider to be part of Charisma.

From a practical standpoint, circumstance penalties/bonuses for interracial or regional differences in views and tastes are pretty much the way to go, which is irritating from a player standpoint because they are highly irl subjective (the DM pretty much eyeballs a number) and can vary situationally (and by DM whim).

[Azoth]

Though it is within reason. I mean, if you are the paradigm of Elven beauty and try to negotiate with a group of Orc Barbarians you can safely assume their cultural hatred of Elves is going to come into play. The fact that you racially anger them, and are ugglier than sin in their eyes is going make them try to screw you over at best if not outright kill you.

[Snowbluff]

Charisma can not represent one's appeal to all evenly.It can and it does. You seems to be forgetting what a gaming abstraction is.

Meanwhile, provide for me an orc, so that he may tell me what beauty. As far as I know, the books were written by humans, and the charisma scores were... written by humans.

Takes elves, for example. They are supposed to be fair, and they look fair... by a human standard.

[Phelix-Mu]

Though it is within reason. I mean, if you are the paradigm of Elven beauty and try to negotiate with a group of Orc Barbarians you can safely assume their cultural hatred of Elves is going to come into play. The fact that you racially anger them, and are ugglier than sin in their eyes is going make them try to screw you over at best if not outright kill you.


It can and it does.

Snowbluff's point, I believe, is that the game sets up this rather illogical situation as its declared mechanic. Charisma is a universal thing; you have it or you don't. If it covers physical beauty (and it does), then the standard holds for all situations with all people.

Unrealistic to be sure, but I guess they were aiming for simplicity, leaving these kinds of situational things to the DM as opposed to complicating the mechanic with variations based on race (which are likely setting specific, anyway).

[Snowbluff]

Unrealistic to be sure, but I guess they were aiming for simplicity, leaving these kinds of situational things to the DM as opposed to complicating the mechanic with variations based on race (which are likely setting specific, anyway).

I once had everyone in one of my game demonstrate the stats of their characters in reality. Charisma was represented by oil paintings. The sorcerer wasn't able to cast spells.

[Regitnui]

Though it is within reason. I mean, if you are the paradigm of Elven beauty and try to negotiate with a group of Orc Barbarians you can safely assume their cultural hatred of Elves is going to come into play. The fact that you racially anger them, and are uglier than sin in their eyes is going make them try to screw you over at best if not outright kill you.

This is a good point. In those races with racial enemies, it's pretty safe to assume that resembling those enemies (elf and orc, dwarf and goblin, gnome and kobold, etc) is unattractive to the vast majority of the race. Therefore half-orcs and burly men look incredibly unattractive to elves, leading us to believe that the Vaarsuvius level of femininity is due to them selectively breeding out all stereotypicaly masculine traits.

On that whole effeminate elf dilemma, don't elf women have fairly noticable secondary sexual characteristics?

[Lazers etcetera]

Do you have a source for this?

Yes, yes I do have a source for it. Most of the Pathfinder fluff, the Cheliax people just love enslaving halflings.

The source for them looking like children bit is my own eyes. They are filthy peeedos.


BTW - in AD&D Uneathed Arcana (the book with Barbarians and Thief/Acrobats) they had a 7th stat for attractiveness, it was notorious at the time. It was called 'Comeliness'. God knows why they picked such an unwieldy name, especially as it became the third stat beginning with C.

The OP's question is pretty clear, I wonder if there are some people being defensive here

[TuggyNE]

BTW - in AD&D Uneathed Arcana (the book with Barbarians and Thief/Acrobats) they had a 7th stat for attractiveness, it was notorious at the time. It was called 'Comeliness'. God knows why they picked such an unwieldy name, especially as it became the third stat beginning with C.

But it has such a lovely Auld English sound to it! :smallamused:

[Regitnui]

That reminds me... The Nymph has a Blinding Beauty ability, so we can assume that a nymph is wildly attractive to all humanoids: from goblins to elves to giants to humans. But that could be just a supernatural thing.

The BoEF gives us a seventh ability, perhaps to replace Comeliness (wow, that's awkward) simply called Appearance. A dwarf is around 10-11, and an elf is 14-15. I imagine then that the other player races fall between those ranges. Incidentally, the Succubus and Nymph are 22-23 and 24-25 respectively, which gives you an idea of the scale here. Zombies are 1, the lowest possible.

[Andezzar]

But it has such a lovely Auld English sound to it! :smallamused:because "attractive" does not fit as well with wench.

[Keneth]

There are still people who use Charisma to measure their physical attractiveness? Oh my... :smalltongue:

We use an Appearance score (inspired by Comeliness from AD&D and Appearance from BOEF) which generally gets a ±2 circumstance bonus/penalty against other subtypes, or a ±4 bonus/penalty against other creature types. It's usually a penalty, but nymphs, for instance, always get a +4 bonus when dealing with humanoids and no penalty against other creature types. You can also get a temporary bonus to your Appearance score with a successful Disguise check (makeup and clothing) and, of course, with spells. Appearance in turn adjusts starting attitudes and some Charisma checks.

I am actually slightly annoyed with people who insist on clinging to those two words in PHB that imply, for simplicity's sake, that Charisma also reflects physical beauty. That's just silly. :smallbiggrin:

[Andezzar]

I am actually slightly annoyed with people who insist on clinging to those two words in PHB that imply, for simplicity's sake, that Charisma also reflects physical beauty. That's just silly. :smallbiggrin:Not as silly as tying awareness to WIS and letting older people hear and see better.

[Regitnui]

Not as silly as tying awareness to WIS and letting older people hear and see better.

Listen and Spot (Awareness) are not about hearing or seeing, but about listening and spotting. The two skills are about noticing things better than others, which older people do quite well. A retired human adventurer could Spot secret doors or eavesdrop on conversations much better than an untrained elf, despite the latter's much keener senses.

So you have no argument.

[Andezzar]

I'm not talking about skilled vs. unskilled +potential racial bonuses. I was talking about the skilled (or unskilled) spotter who gets better at spotting (+1 WIS) for reaching middle age. A point at which eyesight and hearing in real life do not improve and maybe even already deteriorates.

Additionally experience (especially in the form of XP and thus potential to raise the skills spot and listen) has nothing to do with age. A character can easily acquire enough experience to become an epic character without even getting near middle age. with the standard 4 encounters per day and 13 encounters per level you need 3.25 days to level and 65 days to reach level 20. That's nowhere near the minimum time needed to get from the maximum starting age to middle age.

[Keneth]

You don't get any smarter as you age either, nor do you get any more charismatic. Perception being tied to Wisdom is fine, it's the aging bonuses/penalties that make little or no sense.

[Water_Bear]

I once had everyone in one of my game demonstrate the stats of their characters in reality. Charisma was represented by oil paintings. The sorcerer wasn't able to cast spells.

What?

I'm assuming you mean that you "tested" the Players on their "stats" and then used that as the basis for their characters... after the characters were built. Otherwise the only thing I can think of is some kind of Craft (Painting) check gone horribly horribly wrong.

[Lazers etcetera]

What?

I'm assuming you mean that you "tested" the Players on their "stats" and then used that as the basis for their characters... after the characters were built. Otherwise the only thing I can think of is some kind of Craft (Painting) check gone horribly horribly wrong.

I'm pretty sure he meant real-life testing. Waterboarding to determine Con score, bench press for Str, that sort of thing

[Water_Bear]

I'm pretty sure he meant real-life testing. Waterboarding to determine Con score, bench press for Str, that sort of thing

Emphasis mine.

:smalleek:

[Phelix-Mu]

I think bobbing for apples to determine Con score, or simple underwater breath holding, presents a better picture. Torture is a poor test of anything, as it's specifically designed to work on everyone, regardless of the target's skillset or abilities.

Back to the issue. It's very sensible to divorce appearance from Charisma. The conflation is silly and creates the Universal Standard that is clearly a simplification for the sake of simplicity. Something I personally don't feel a need for in my game, but it does streamline the rules a lot (some people play a game where appearance and attraction is pretty much all fluff and may even be more-or-less irrelevant, which is fine).

I also dislike human-centric thinking. The game is an exercise in fantasy role playing. While admitting that players, as humans, are ultimately limited by their human minds and experiences, the goal is to move beyond the typical limits imposed by this mindset, and use imagination.

The PHB gives actual reasons for Charisma bonuses and penalties (there actually aren't races with a bonus in PHB). Half-orcs are uncharismatic because they don't give a flying you-know-what about what others think, they talk with their fists, and so forth. Personally, I don't hold much with this penalty, but whatever. As far as I'm concerned, even Fabio the Half-Orc is probably uncharismatic, because he was taught by his society that being cruel is effective, that force is better than finesse, and who really talks much anyway (what with that Intelligence penalty). Stereotypical? Yes. Welcome to the game.

The same is true in reverse with the beauty bias for elves, except there isn't a Charisma bonus, just a descriptive bias in making the elves like modern human fashion icons. It is worth bearing that in the times when Tolkien-esque elves first appeared in human myths, Celtic and Welsh stories about the Fair Folk and such, the appearance of these creatures was not the standard for human beauty. Rather their appeal was in magically enchanting abilities, superhuman magnetism, and exotic features. There was a fair bit of wives/husbands being spirited away after being seduced, but that's human mythology for you.

[Spuddles]

Evo psych is largely unfalsifiable hogwash.

I keep seeing crap in here about big titted blondes as a standard for beauty, but the porn stats dont back that up. The statistically average porn actress is 5'5", 117lbs, a 34A with a big butt, and brunette.

[Lazers etcetera]

Evo psych is largely unfalsifiable hogwash.

I keep seeing crap in here about big titted blondes as a standard for beauty, but the porn stats dont back that up. The statistically average porn actress is 5'5", 117lbs, a 34A with a big butt, and brunette.

I... think that is accurate.

:redface:

Might have to research your claim though

[Andezzar]

I keep seeing crap in here about big titted blondes as a standard for beauty, but the porn stats dont back that up. The statistically average porn actress is 5'5", 117lbs, a 34A with a big butt, and brunette.You or someone else did a statistical analysis on adult actresses across the globe?

[Spuddles]

I... think that is accurate.

:redface:

Might have to research your claim though


You or someone else did a statistical analysis on adult actresses across the globe?

Search John Millward Deep Inside. That should get you what you're looking for. Linking violates board rules due to the nature of the content.

But yeah, pretty interesting stuff. Anecdotally, "the girl next door" look tends to be the biggest moneymaker in stripclubs. But I have nothing to back that up other than talking to strippers.

[Snowbluff]

Holding breath was for Con. Waterboarding was suggested for wisdom at one point. Will saves and all that.

@Phelix Mu, as far as you not liking what is probably true in the majority of cases, immersion is the purpose of the exercise. If the character is not considered beautiful by the players, how would the players believe it is considered beautiful by others? Every action we take to differentiate the environment must have its consequences considered beforehand.



I keep seeing crap in here about big titted blondes as a standard for beauty, but the porn stats dont back that up. The statistically average porn actress is 5'5", 117lbs, a 34A with a big butt, and brunette.
Uh, 2 thing.

1) That porn is setting the standards for beauty. The clientele are who you are addressing, not a larger group as a whole.

2) The availability of what would be considered ideal. The average you have listed is only representing a portion of an industry.

Other factors must be considered.

[Keneth]

I keep seeing crap in here about big titted blondes as a standard for beauty, but the porn stats dont back that up. The statistically average porn actress is 5'5", 117lbs, a 34A with a big butt, and brunette.

While I agree with you evo psych, I don't agree with you on this. Unless you're not taking into account the number of times actresses dye their hair a different color during their career, and the disproportionate amount that get breast implants.

[Spuddles]

Holding breath was for Con. Waterboarding was suggested for wisdom at one point. Will saves and all that.

@Phelix Mu, as far as you not liking what is probably true in the majority of cases, immersion is the purpose of the exercise. If the character is not considered beautiful by the players, how would the players believe it is considered beautiful by others? Every action we take to differentiate the environment must have its consequences considered beforehand.


Uh, 2 thing.

1) That porn is setting the standards for beauty. The clientele are who you are addressing, not a larger group as a whole.

2) The availability of what would be considered ideal. The average you have listed is only representing a portion of an industry.

Other factors must be considered.

I was waiting for someone to bring this stuff up.
1) virtually all western men have consumed pornography. There was some research being done on porn consumption and they could not find anyone for their control group.

2) hair can be dyed. breasts can be enhanced.

Porn is super interesting because it's a market driven by two things: money and sex. I feel that the data from the porn industry is far more robust than asking 31 middle class psychology undergraduates some questions. Producers & consumers have a little more "skin in the game" if you will.


While I agree with you evo psych, I don't agree with you on this. Unless you're not taking into account the number of times actresses dye their hair a different color during their career, and the disproportionate amount that get breast implants.

Those stats are from a database of 10,000 adult performers.

[Keneth]

Those stats are from a database of 10,000 adult performers.

All fine and dandy, but databases are generally speaking static data, whereas women change their appearance more often than men change their underwear. And that's assuming there's no data bias. If all that's taken into account are actresses from the Valley and their natural sizes, then the data isn't really representative of the industry as a whole.

[Spuddles]

All fine and dandy, but databases are generally speaking static data, whereas women change their appearance more often than men change their underwear. And that's assuming there's no data bias. If all that's taken into account are actresses from the Valley and their natural sizes, then the data isn't really representative of the industry as a whole.

Just look the dataset up, dude. Neither of those are the case.

[Snowbluff]

I was waiting for someone to bring this stuff up.
1) virtually all western men have consumed pornography. There was some research being done on porn consumption and they could not find anyone for their control group.Fallacious. Consumptions does not indicate the ideal is being met. All porn could have been made with what we and a majority would consider ugly women, people would purchase it due to demand for anything in the genre, and you would insist it is valid.


2) hair can be dyed. breasts can be enhanced.
Does not account for preferences for natural assets. I understand a select few are fans of damaged hair, but the majority will ask for something perfect.



Porn is super interesting because it's a market driven by two things: money and sex. I feel that the data from the porn industry is far more robust than asking 31 middle class psychology undergraduates some questions. Producers & consumers have a little more "skin in the game" if you will.
Causation is what I seek. Correlation is what you have. The ability to reason why things are this way is valuable.

[Chained Birds]

This thread got a little more interesting in an unusually (yet oddly understandable) sort of way. :smallconfused:

My 2 cents about all this.

Humans: I guess breast size and quality of hair color are the standards for women, as there seems to be a lot of arguments about what hair color is most attractive which tells me it is a pretty big factor in human standards. For men, it is their body tone and muscle tone; though I believe cleanliness may be of some concern when human women seek men (though I don't know how important it is).

Elves: Both sexes seem to find attraction in each other's hair length and elegance. I can hardly find a single elf picture that depicts the race dressing like a slob or being overweight. Though it also seems they have Standards similar to Humans in regards to muscle tone and breast size.

Half-Orc/Orc: I've heard that the size of the Orc's tusk is somewhat of a factor in Orcish Standards of Attraction, though I don't have any sources for this (Just something I've noticed). Orc women also seem to favor Orc men with muscular figures and battle scars, while Orc men find these standards on Orc women to be equally appealing. Though Orc men also find women that have a physique that can bear multiple children just as attractive.

Halfling: Seems like they have similar standards to Humans in regards to what males seek in females. Halfling Woman, however, seem to not so much focus on the male's body, but more on how they interact with others. The wittier the male sounds, the more attractive he is.

Gnome: With their innate illusory skills, both sexes find trickery and the ability to create complex illusions to be attractive. Besides that, Gnomes have similar standards to Humans.

Half-Elf: This race seems to have the same standards as Humans. Can't seem to find anything really unique about them.

Dwarf: Attractiveness comes from the beard. Female Dwarves have beards but they are considerably more maintained and supposedly feel like a soft fur. The softer it is, the more attractive they are to male Dwarves. On the flip side, female Dwarves are not looking for softness, or even much cleanliness in their partner's beards, but are looking for how complex their beards are adorned and the fashion in which they are held together.

[Lazers etcetera]

Spuddies is doubtless coming from a position of authority (the Millward study is v interesting), but even non-fictional humans with no racial (but certainly cultural) difference hav very different standards for porn.

European/American style is rather different to Japanese smut in the way their actors... behave. That is certainly an important part of what is considered culturally attractive.

Less oddly, the women in both styles are not wholly dissimilar these days. - both are lithe and smaller breasted than one would expect (suggesting some universality) and...

I digress. I'm now really curious about Elf porn.

[Spuddles]

Fallacious. Consumptions does not indicate the ideal is being met. All porn could have been made with what we and a majority would consider ugly women, people would purchase it due to demand for anything in the genre, and you would insist it is valid.

Does not account for preferences for natural assets.

Causation is what I seek. Correlation is what you have. The ability to reason why things are this way is valuable.

I have evidence and you have hand waving.

Cool story.

This is why evo psych will never be considered real science.


Humans: I guess breast size and quality of hair color are the standards for women, as there seems to be a lot of arguments about what hair color is most attractive which tells me it is a pretty big factor in human standards. For men, it is their body tone and muscle tone; though I believe cleanliness may be of some concern when human women seek men (though I don't know how important it is).

Most investigation into beauty in humans applies to both sexes, and some of this has been mentioned far upthread:
Symmetry of features
Indicators of good health, like straight teeth, clear skin, full hair
Proportionality

Hip-to-waist ratio and waist-to-shoulder ratio are pretty universal in defining attractiveness among humans.


Spuddies is doubtless coming from a position of authority, but even non-fictional humans with no racial (but certainly cultural) difference hav very different standards for porn.

European/American style is rather different to Japanese smut in the way their actors... behave. That is certainly an important part of what is considered culturally attractive.

Less oddly, the women in both styles are not wholly dissimilar these days. - both are lithe and smaller breasted than one would expect and...

I digress. I'm now really curious about Elf porn.

But why would we expect that? It's like we've built a huge cultural narrative about giant breasts on tall blonde women, going so far as to try and make it scientific, but the evidence isn't really there. Snowbluff is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. We readily reject evidence because it's easier to continue believing our cultural myth of the barbie doll.

[Lazers etcetera]

I use the word 'expected' in the sense that we are told by some mysterious source, yet everyone takes it as read, that people like big breasted, blonde birds.

Now, the Millawrds study suggests - and anecdotal evidence from every single het male friend I know suggests - that that is not actually an ideal, I don't know where it comes from. The ideal among folk I know is much closer to the porn shape.

The Jayne Mansfield ideal is quite odd.

Anyway. ELVES please

[Snowbluff]

I have evidence and you have hand waving.

Cool story.

This is why evo psych will never be considered real science.


Then substantiate your 'evidence'. Perform a study concerning the public at large. Prove to me without a shadow of a doubt everyone has a flat-chest fetish, and other factors past measurements are not involved.

Also, anyone can claim action. For example: "You are merely incapable of providing logic in the face of skepticism." I have a legitimate concerns with your claim and I wish to see something valid.

[Keneth]

Just look the dataset up, dude. Neither of those are the case.

Having checked the statistic done by Millward and the data in the database and how it's presented, I can foresee several issues with it. The fact that the data was processed with Excel doesn't give me much confidence in the results either. I'm not in the mood for a debate though, so let's say that for a general view, it's correct enough.

[Spuddles]

I've always figured dwarfs were gay. Like spartan warrior gay. Total bear culture + axes and warfare. It explains why the females have beards, too. Moradin thought they looked better with hair on their face.

Orcs are extremely patriarchal and I expect that there's a high level of sexual dimorphism between races. It might explain why half-orcs exist- orc females probably look a lot like human females (though taller and all the proportionate str that comes with it), for whatever reasons humans look like they. Or half orcs exist because orcs are really rape-y because they're chaotic evil.

Elves probably find something rally weird and esoteric attractive, like long fingers or a narrow ass or maybe they're into ears. Yeah, I bet it's ears. They're like cleavage on humans.


Then substantiate your 'evidence'. Perform a study concerning the public at large. Prove to me without a shadow of a doubt everyone has a flat-chest fetish, and other factors past measurements are not involved.

Also, anyone can claim action. For example: "You are merely incapable of providing logic in the face of skepticism." I have a legitimate concerns with your claim and I wish to see something valid.

Our philosophies diverge too greatly for anything worthwhile to come of further discussion on this topic.

[Lazers etcetera]

Dwarves are gay. Total daddies.

Gnomes are really into toys.

[Snowbluff]

Our philosophies diverge too greatly for anything worthwhile to come of further discussion on this topic.

Exactly my point. Please don't pretend you have science when your evidence is circumstantial. :smallwink:

[Sith_Happens]

Exactly my point. Please don't pretend you have science when your evidence is circumstantial. :smallwink:

Evidence is evidence is evidence is evidence. 10000 data points were collected, a trend was found, that's called "science." Are there multiple plausible reasons for the trend to exist? Of course. Doesn't mean you can dismiss any of them without evidence of your own, which you don't have (seriously, "consumption does not indicate the ideal is being met?" Careful who you say that around, one of them might know anything at all about economics).

[Snowbluff]

Seriously, "consumption does not indicate the ideal is being met?" Careful who you say that around, one of them might know anything at all about economics.

Excuse me, how often do you think the average consumer purchases something and go "That was 100% perfect"?

Perhaps I should have added a "necessarily" there, but the evidence is providing a correlation, but that does not necessarily imply a causation. The data only gives us who works in the industry, correct? Does it tell us that the measurements are the reasons why a certain is successful? Or was that due to something else?

If you want contrary evidence, sex sells, and we all know what the most common superpower is.

[Sith_Happens]

The data only gives us who works in the industry, correct? Does it tell us that the measurements are the reasons why a certain is successful? Or was that due to something else?

Depends on whether you think that one of if not the biggest entertainment sector is going to cheap out on casting directors and marketing guys.

[Snowbluff]

Depends on whether you think that one of if not the biggest entertainment sector is going to cheap out on casting directors and marketing guys.

So they would know the answer. It is possible they choose people based on other factors. If they are, that means our sample size is transparently giving us the idea of beauty/attractiveness of these people, either based on personal preference, or a potentially mishandled attempt at market research ("What is your favorite actress in porn?"). Either way, I think they might be the ones we should be surveying.

[Keneth]

I just want to point out that I'm on Snowbluff's side of this. It was actually one of my own conclusions after inspecting the study and the database. While I am willing to concede that an average porn actress does indeed look much as described (although the data is lacking information that would make these findings truly accurate), I could find no indication that the data is in any way weighted, not by any sort of rating or even activity. So even though it might give you a rough estimate of what the average adult performer looks like, it is in no way indicative of what is considered a standard of beauty.

The only really interesting part of the study, and one actually relevant to this discussion, is the facial composite of the top 10 female performers. I wasn't at all surprised to see that the face looks very much like the composite of the top performers in the (standard) film industry, or that of top models. It's what it pretty much boils down to, regardless of where you take your popular women from (so long as they're predominantly white). The result of virtual eugenics, if you will. So I guess that can be taken as the human standard for beauty, albeit only so far as facial features are concerned.

[Regitnui]

Okay, let's stop arguing about porn, if only to stop myself imagining halfling on half-orc action... Too late.:smallyuk:


Dwarf: Attractiveness comes from the beard. Female Dwarves have beards but they are considerably more maintained and supposedly feel like a soft fur. The softer it is, the more attractive they are to male Dwarves. On the flip side, female Dwarves are not looking for softness, or even much cleanliness in their partner's beards, but are looking for how complex their beards are adorned and the fashion in which they are held together.

Dwarf women don't have beards in 3.X. To quote:


Their hair is usually black, gray, or brown, and worn long. Dwarf men value their beards highly and groom them very carefully. Dwarves favor simple styles for their hair, beards, and clothes.


the dwarves prize their hair, whether it is on their scalps (for both genders) or on their faces (for males).

[Shadowknight12]

Okay, let's stop arguing about porn, if only to stop myself imagining halfling on half-orc action... Too late.:smallyuk:

What do you mean, :smallyuk: ? The mental image is definitely a :smallamused: to me. Maybe even a :smallredface: .

[Keneth]

Dwarf women don't have beards in 3.X.

But that's entirely setting specific, and besides, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In Greyhawk, female dwarves have beards, and there's indication that at least some female dwarves in Faerun can grow them as well. On the other hand, in Golarion and whatever the hell 4e uses for its base setting nowadays, there is evidence to support a lack of beardedness. Clearly the notion of beards and other racial quirks is getting left behind in newer editions in favor of appealing to the human standards for beauty.

[Regitnui]

Clearly the notion of beards and other racial quirks is getting left behind in newer editions in favor of appealing to the human standards for beauty.

Is that a bad thing? Facial hair only evolved in human males as a display device, much like a peacock's tail. Human females have a different display structure; their breasts. There's no reason for a bipedal humanoid female with prominent mammary glands to develop a secondary display feature.

[Sith_Happens]

Is that a bad thing? Facial hair only evolved in human males as a display device, much like a peacock's tail. Human females have a different display structure; their breasts. There's no reason for a bipedal humanoid female with prominent mammary glands to develop a secondary display feature.

It couldn't hurt.:smalltongue:

[Keneth]

I think it's safe to say that basing other races' beauty standards entirely on our own is kinda pointless. The practice is only used to attract more consumers, which is fine, but it makes the races less interesting. Who knows, maybe a female dwarf with a good beard triggers something in the male that tells them the children are gonna have good beards as well, much like wide hips imply increased ability to bear children. Maybe the competitiveness between women demanded that they develop secondary or tertiary features to attract their desired males. There's plenty of opportunity to create differing beauty standards between races, even ones who are otherwise alike in many ways.

[Regitnui]

If I've learned anything by reading the Races of... Books, it's that all the 'common races' are all actually human in psychology. The creatures with actual biological differences to humanity; Shifters, Changelings, Dragons and even the goliaths; all have alien mindsets, while dwarves are just community-minded humans, elves are beautiful mountain men, and halflings are short gypsies. Why is it unreasonable for them to have the same conception of beauty when they are essentially less variable humans?

[Lazers etcetera]

Kender porn: watchable or repulsive?

[Keneth]

Why is it unreasonable for them to have the same conception of beauty when they are essentially less variable humans?

Because there's no real reason why they should be just less variable humans. They are their own races, not a subrace of humans, they should have their own psychological traits and social norms. Otherwise there's no point in playing one, just play a human instead, it's the best race in D&D by far.

[Chained Birds]

Dwarf women don't have beards in 3.X. To quote:

:smallannoyed: In my settings they do.

Though the whole soft beard idea did come from different sources and homebrewed settings; as has been stated, Greyhawk has Dwarves of either sex displaying proud beards.

[Kane0]

Orc mindset: Victory
Favors firm, defining physical features like tusks and muscle. They lend towards the idea that power and strength lends attractiveness, though individuals may also realise that cunning and power not derived from brute force is viable.

Goblinlod mindset: fertility
Moreso than any other intelligent race, goblinlids value features that bely the ability to reproduce, frequently and in large numbers. This also extends to cultural and social features, leading to harem-like setups on a regular basis.

Elf mindset: Sensitivity
Almost a polar opposite to orcs, elves favor the subtle. Sharp eyes and ears, reflexive (but still healthy and refined) bodies are favored. Physical health is still favorable but a sharp mind takes the front stage. The elven affinity for magic also means less reliance and emphasis on the physical and more on the mental, social and magical, which holds true even for drow (though their mindset has shifted towards something resembling a draconic one)

Dwarf mindset: stability
Dwarves value features that display an ability to endure. Not as obvious as scars and rippling muscle like orcs, but along similar lines. Beards are both a cultural tradition and secondary means of showing a particular dwarf can survive ling enough to grow and maintain it.

Halfling mindset: socialisation
Halflings favor open and friendly features, and an ability to hold one's own in a coversation. Wit and luck are held in high regard, and physically speaking equal importance is placed on strength and litheness, similar to humans.

Gnome mindset: insight
Gnomes have a cultural history with illusion magic, and appearances dont count for quite as much than other races (though still more so than shapechangers). Actual prowess with illusion magic or ingenuity in genral is looked highly upon, and a gnome with a good mind earns a mate easier than one without, almost regardless of physical traits.

Draconic mindset: power
Dragons favor power in all its forms, be it physical, mental, magical, wealth, etc. since all dragons are bound to have at least one of these, the most attractive ones are te ones with everything, the more the better. Most dragons can change form so actual specific physical traits dont matter all that much. That, and the fact that the ability to acquire mates easily can be seen as a type of power, is probably why dragons go around making half breeds all the time.