Annoying Fantasy Clichés II: We're gonna need more Trope

[Guizonde]

here is the previous entry, if you want to catch up.

this thread is all about what annoys you in fantasy: pointy wizard hats, gods that don't do anything, a strangely human-centric outview in the city of the deathworms on vlaaaaargh 7? post your gripes here, and hear about what annoys the rest of the boards!

[Spore]

And much about how the Doctor works is governed by aesthetics (especially dramatic irony)--the punishment must fit the (attempted) crime. It's a basic rule, not of the universe, but of the Doctor. And those rules are more binding on him than mere physical law (which he tramples on regularly).

In general, when dealing with such things there's always an unspoken law. It's unspoken because trying to explain it would ruin the fiction (by being verbose and boring and something that very few people actually care about). It's plausible coherence that matters. Lots of things work under very controlled situations that just don't work in other cases. And for magic, especially, the mental is more important than the physical, the perceived more important than the actualized.

This is just plain weird. It _sounds_ plausible and the doctor is a strong psychic entity but most of the times, the punishment for the villains are both improvised and dictated by the story.

I don't think in the - off screen thinking process - there are several dozens of solutions for the problem. He rather comes up with a few non-lethal solutions and picks the one that saves the most people. Because if he has anything, it is a high body count DESPITE helping. Also while I do NOT want to devolve into an alignment discussion, I feel the doctor abides by nothing but the Shadow Proclamation

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is just plain weird. It _sounds_ plausible and the doctor is a strong psychic entity but most of the times, the punishment for the villains are both improvised and dictated by the story.

I don't think in the - off screen thinking process - there are several dozens of solutions for the problem. He rather comes up with a few non-lethal solutions and picks the one that saves the most people. Because if he has anything, it is a high body count DESPITE helping. Also while I do NOT want to devolve into an alignment discussion, I feel the doctor abides by nothing but the Shadow Proclamation

It's not that the rules are binding from the outside. They're binding from the inside--he chooses to abide by rules. And it seems that aesthetic punishments are one of those, especially when he's seriously ticked off.

Remember the "A good man doesn't need rules? There's a reason I have so many" part from Matt Smith's Doctor? He has lots of rules. Many of them are unstated, but they're there. And the truth about super-powered people is that it's the internal constraints, the things that are true because otherwise he wouldn't be who he is, that are interesting.

[Quellian-dyrae]

Probably my biggest pet peeve in fantasy is when evil is presented as some necessary thing. Key to the fabric of the universe, a necessary "balance" to good, etc. It becomes especially annoying when it's taken outside of the arbitrary cosmological arena and presented as a necessary or beneficial aspect of morality. Such as the arguments that "civilization/progress would not exist if not for evil" or "without evil good would not exist" or, probably worst of all, "if it wasn't for evil, good would just become more and more intolerant and destroy itself; evil gives it something to fight".

It's fine when villains are trying to convince people of that sort of stuff, of course. But yeah it annoys me when the narrative presents it as a true or reasonable argument.

[Beleriphon]

Probably my biggest pet peeve in fantasy is when evil is presented as some necessary thing. Key to the fabric of the universe, a necessary "balance" to good, etc. It becomes especially annoying when it's taken outside of the arbitrary cosmological arena and presented as a necessary or beneficial aspect of morality. Such as the arguments that "civilization/progress would not exist if not for evil" or "without evil good would not exist" or, probably worst of all, "if it wasn't for evil, good would just become more and more intolerant and destroy itself; evil gives it something to fight".

It's fine when villains are trying to convince people of that sort of stuff, of course. But yeah it annoys me when the narrative presents it as a true or reasonable argument.

Evil being necessary is really just a riff on this Gordon Gecko's speech about greed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVxYOQS6ggk

I can also be about how evil is inevitable, or a part of how the universe functions and quite frankly can't be stopped completely no matter how hard one tries.

[Personification]

Probably my biggest pet peeve in fantasy is when evil is presented as some necessary thing. Key to the fabric of the universe, a necessary "balance" to good, etc. It becomes especially annoying when it's taken outside of the arbitrary cosmological arena and presented as a necessary or beneficial aspect of morality. Such as the arguments that "civilization/progress would not exist if not for evil" or "without evil good would not exist" or, probably worst of all, "if it wasn't for evil, good would just become more and more intolerant and destroy itself; evil gives it something to fight".

It's fine when villains are trying to convince people of that sort of stuff, of course. But yeah it annoys me when the narrative presents it as a true or reasonable argument.

An interesting twist on this concept (which was then used as the plot of Serenity), is a Jewish folktale (it probably also exists in other cultures) of how a bunch of rabbis managed to trap what could be translated as "the evil impulse", basically the shoulder devil of the universe. While at first it made everything better, soon nobody was doing anything, and society was stopping, because the evil impulse goes back to impulsiveness itself, which at its root is an aspect of the impetus to act and will to live. So the rabbis were forced to release the impulse back, as without it everyone just sort of died.

Of course, this is not exactly the same concept. Also I would like to say that I probably messed up the details on the above story.

[Quellian-dyrae]

Yeah that's pretty much exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about.

Evil is in no way required for impulse or action. When a story gives evil credit for the motivation to act, or (touching on the greed speech above) ambition, or some other entirely neutral but necessary thing, it bugs me. Evil might certainly be just as natural a thing as the motivation to act or the drive to succeed, but it isn't a prerequisite for them.

[Personification]

Yeah that's pretty much exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about.

Evil is in no way required for impulse or action. When a story gives evil credit for the motivation to act, or (touching on the greed speech above) ambition, or some other entirely neutral but necessary thing, it bugs me. Evil might certainly be just as natural a thing as the motivation to act or the drive to succeed, but it isn't a prerequisite for them.

It isn't that those are inherently evil, it is that they are also related to evil impulses. I probably didn't explain it well.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I would say that it's the ability to do evil that's important. If everyone could live as saints, doing no evil, that would be a wonderful thing. Each individual would still have the ability to do evil, but actively chooses not to. Removing this ability to do evil renders the person not a moral actor--merely the moral equivalent of a robot. Unthinking machines, rocks falling off of mountains, hurricanes, etc. aren't evil--they're not moral objects at all. They can't do good, either. They merely do what they're acted on to do. And that would be a tragedy.

[Personification]

I would say that it's the ability to do evil that's important. If everyone could live as saints, doing no evil, that would be a wonderful thing. Each individual would still have the ability to do evil, but actively chooses not to. Removing this ability to do evil renders the person not a moral actor--merely the moral equivalent of a robot. Unthinking machines, rocks falling off of mountains, hurricanes, etc. aren't evil--they're not moral objects at all. They can't do good, either. They merely do what they're acted on to do. And that would be a tragedy.

This is closer to what the story is getting at.

[elanfanboy]

I would say that it's the ability to do evil that's important. If everyone could live as saints, doing no evil, that would be a wonderful thing. Each individual would still have the ability to do evil, but actively chooses not to. Removing this ability to do evil renders the person not a moral actor--merely the moral equivalent of a robot. Unthinking machines, rocks falling off of mountains, hurricanes, etc. aren't evil--they're not moral objects at all. They can't do good, either. They merely do what they're acted on to do. And that would be a tragedy.

This isn’t exactly right. Without evil there is no free will. Every choice has multiple sides to it, and every option has good and evil results. Evil and good are two sides of the same coin, but they don’t need to exist together.

[Quellian-dyrae]

I would say that it's the ability to do evil that's important. If everyone could live as saints, doing no evil, that would be a wonderful thing. Each individual would still have the ability to do evil, but actively chooses not to. Removing this ability to do evil renders the person not a moral actor--merely the moral equivalent of a robot. Unthinking machines, rocks falling off of mountains, hurricanes, etc. aren't evil--they're not moral objects at all. They can't do good, either. They merely do what they're acted on to do. And that would be a tragedy.

I'm not sure I agree. Or more precisely, I think the causality is being inverted there.

I would agree that removing the ability to do evil by removing the ability to make moral choice at all, would be a net negative thing. Having free will and the capacity to do evil along with it is better than having no free will. I think this is likewise how I'd come at the impulse thing; removing the impulse to do evil by removing all impulse entirely would absolutely be a net negative. And it would certainly be fair to say that there's no "shortcut" to removing evil without removing free will entirely. There's no magic or technology or phlebotinum or whatever that can extricate it, and the only real option is for the people themselves to reject or otherwise grow beyond it. That's a perfectly reasonable moral for a story.

It's the idea that without the capacity for evil you couldn't have the capacity for good that I don't buy. If the magic/supertech/phlebotinum is presented as removing the capacity for evil specifically (or removing evil from the universe, or destroying the source of evil, or whatever), and what ends up happening is something like oops without the evil free will goes away I guess we need the evil! That's where it bugs me. Given the fantastical premise that evil itself can be isolated and removed, I reject the idea that without it there can't also be goodness/free will/whatever. Lacking the ability to choose to harm others for selfish reasons does not inherently preclude the ability to choose to help others for selfless reasons, although yes lacking the capacity to choose entirely would preclude both.

Without evil there is no free will.

This, likewise. You can have free will without the ability to do evil (theoretically; in practice, human beings do not), although it would not be unfair to say you have less free will. But there are plenty of things I could will to do and yet am not capable of doing (as an example, I cannot choose to be a duck, though I could certainly choose to act like one). The inability to make that choice does not mean I don't have free will, although it would be fair to say my will is less free than that of a hypothetical reality warper who could, if it so wished, choose to be a duck.

Every choice has multiple sides to it, and every option has good and evil results. Evil and good are two sides of the same coin, but they don’t need to exist together.

This I'd more-or-less agree with, although I'd maybe instead say every option can potentially have both positive and negative results. I don't think a hypothetical being incapable of evil but capable of choice would necessarily be unable to make choices simply because they have negative repercussions for others, which is what you would get if you labeled those results evil in and of themselves. But it probably would not be able to assign those repercussions as it knows them a zero-or-positive value in calculating that option's desirability. That is, it probably wouldn't be able to ignore (or diminish) the harm that might come to others as a result of its choices, and it certainly wouldn't be able to take that harm as a desirable result of the choice in itself.

[elanfanboy]

@Quellian-dyrae:
I understand what you mean, and it makes perfect sense, but there is one thing that makes the trope pretty much guaranteed in every setting. The simple fact that a story is boring without conflict, which takes place between two sides, these sides are always classified as the “good” side and the “bad” side even though both sides will commit acts on both sides of the spectrum. Good and evil are two views that other humans place actions in. One person committing a murder will be both good and evil depending on who the is classsifying the action. Therefore evil will always exist because of the subconscious classifications caused by human nature.

[Cluedrew]

Did the thread actually get back to annoying fantasy clichés? I abandoned the last thread when it were several pages into a debate on racism and I hadn't seen a proper annoyance in almost as many pages.

On a similar note I'm not sure this is the place for a debate on the necessity of evil, seems a bit much. But just in case I will through out two things: the potential to be evil is different from actually being evil and not all suffering in the world is actually from evil (plenty of problems for people to fix without causing more of them).

Anyways, for annoying fantasy things... anyone who is powerful and special just because of destiny is really hard to get right. I mean if it changes something about the world and that is important than is one thing. But if it is code for "they are the main character"... I mean it that is the joke maybe, but I never seen it done well.

Also people getting transported to some fantasy world with video game rules. People getting transported to fantasy land has been a staple since... before the Chronicles of Narnia at least. But the moment video game rules show up that is a red flag. First it once again seems to be a way to explain that the PCs are important without an in world reason for it. Second stories that do this seem to follow a very narrow formula and almost all the ones I've seen have been bad.

[Quellian-dyrae]

@Quellian-dyrae:
I understand what you mean, and it makes perfect sense, but there is one thing that makes the trope pretty much guaranteed in every setting. The simple fact that a story is boring without conflict, which takes place between two sides, these sides are always classified as the “good” side and the “bad” side even though both sides will commit acts on both sides of the spectrum. Good and evil are two views that other humans place actions in. One person committing a murder will be both good and evil depending on who the is classsifying the action. Therefore evil will always exist because of the subconscious classifications caused by human nature.

Oh evil, conflict, and the like existing in the stories is totally fine, definitely. I'm not saying stories should not have evil in them. I'm saying that if a story presents a way of removing evil (specifically; again, removing something bigger like free will with the side effect of removing evil is another story), they should not present it as a bad thing. I'm talking about a much more specific trope than evil existing in general...uh, quick checking TV Tropes, I'm probably most specifically talking about Good Needs Evil and perhaps some functions of Balance Betwen Good and Evil.

Story has evil: Fine.

Story has bad guys trying to "make the world a better place" by removing free will (which includes capacity for evil) and the heroes stop them: Fine.

Story has the good guys find/do something that they think removes evil but it turns out it actually removes free will and now they have to undo it: Fine.

Story has the good guys specifically remove/defeat/destroy/seal/whatever evil and the world turns to suck because of it: .

[Bohandas]

An interesting twist on this concept (which was then used as the plot of Serenity), is a Jewish folktale (it probably also exists in other cultures) of how a bunch of rabbis managed to trap what could be translated as "the evil impulse", basically the shoulder devil of the universe. While at first it made everything better, soon nobody was doing anything, and society was stopping, because the evil impulse goes back to impulsiveness itself, which at its root is an aspect of the impetus to act and will to live. So the rabbis were forced to release the impulse back, as without it everyone just sort of died.

Of course, this is not exactly the same concept. Also I would like to say that I probably messed up the details on the above story.

That was also an episode of The Powerpuff Girls. An antivillain named Allegro comes to Townsville and magically makes everybody happy, laid back, and content, but to the point wjere they're so laid back that the infrastructure of the city starts to collapse because nobody's working and they're all so content that nobody cares (except for the Powerpuff Girls themselves, who are apparently immune)

[Bohandas]

Probably my biggest pet peeve in fantasy is when evil is presented as some necessary thing. Key to the fabric of the universe, a necessary "balance" to good, etc. It becomes especially annoying when it's taken outside of the arbitrary cosmological arena and presented as a necessary or beneficial aspect of morality. Such as the arguments that "civilization/progress would not exist if not for evil" or "without evil good would not exist" or, probably worst of all, "if it wasn't for evil, good would just become more and more intolerant and destroy itself; evil gives it something to fight".

It's fine when villains are trying to convince people of that sort of stuff, of course. But yeah it annoys me when the narrative presents it as a true or reasonable argument.

The worst version of this is when it's presented via an equally incorrect metaphor or analogy such as that light cannot exist without darkness or, worse, that darkness cannot exist without lighf

[Spore]

The one thing you lack is that evil in any philosophy is not cut and dry. it is not objective. Everyone defines evil slightly different. To me it is evil and selfish to not help a semi-paralyzed man to walk to the bathroom? To me definitely. To my coworkers? Apparently not, sympathy is enough.

Also good and evil scale. If you had not evil, you could not differentiate your response. Why not buy the man in my example a 24/7 help? That would be "gooder", now would it? It would bankrupt me but it would be the good solution. Helping him through the day myself would be perfect. But I have a job to do to pay my own rent. Some sort of egoism is necessary.

Story has the good guys specifically remove/defeat/destroy/seal/whatever evil and the world turns to suck because of it

So you are not angry at philosophical concepts but at poorly explained plots. Got it.

[Quellian-dyrae]

The one thing you lack is that evil in any philosophy is not cut and dry. it is not objective. Everyone defines evil slightly different.

Which is another excellent reason to say "why no, there's not some spell you can cast/object you can break/villain you can defeat/whatever that can just make evil go away, thanks for asking". But once you do have something like that, evil being subjective doesn't really change that evil going away should not result in a ruined world or other sufficiently large-scale problem that it has to be undone.

Also good and evil scale. If you had not evil, you could not differentiate your response. Why not buy the man in my example a 24/7 help? That would be "gooder", now would it? It would bankrupt me but it would be the good solution. Helping him through the day myself would be perfect. But I have a job to do to pay my own rent. Some sort of egoism is necessary.

I'd argue you absolutely could. You can be less good without being more evil. You can have less of a thing while still not having any of that thing's opposite, particularly in a sliding scale like good and evil where you've got a big ol' block of neutrality sitting in the middle.

So you are not angry at philosophical concepts but at poorly explained plots.

It's not so much that they explain it poorly as that the explanation they give annoys me. "Evil ain't so easy to get rid of" is a moral I can get behind. "Evil's actually a pretty useful thing to have" isn't.

[The Jack]

Good and evil nonsense always comes off as someone trying to justify their own inadequacy. I love extremes because they're good for exploring ideas, but the whole "evil necessary for good" thing as a metaphysical truth is the result of a writer who likes words more than sense, and who probably should have a deal of guilt to them.

Even though I despise his political standpoint, I can appreciate Tolkien ascribing evil to things he doesn't like. It works because it's a point of view, and he's honest about it.



I dislike the fantasy of leather armour, and any and all cosplay trying to emulate it is almost certainly a disaster.

The abundance of magic swords tends to wear thin sometimes too. Ten thousand extra minus points if they're japanese blades in a european setting.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Something that has bugged me lately has been the "specific body types for specific fantasy races" thing: Elves are always "slender" and "willowy," Dwarves are always "stocky" or "stout," etc. Part of it is about beauty standards, naturally, slim elves being viewed as more beautiful than stocky dwarves and humans, and that's kind of seeped into fantasy film and stuff, most notably with the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit live-action movies. Tolkien himself says hobbits are inclined to be fat (how could they not be, they eat 7 meals a day?!), but in the movies only Sean Astin as Samwise seems to have the "normal" hobbit body-type Tolkien described. I wanna see more muscular or chubby elves! I wanna see more slim or wiry dwarves! I wanna see humans of ALL body types in these stories, and not just chiseled barbarians and buxom princesses! I want to see more pretty orcs (these aren't TOO hard to find, but it's mostly through fanart or original depictions)! Thank you!

[Bohandas]

This isn’t exactly right. Without evil there is no free will.

What if, hypothetically, somebody lives in perfect total seclusion? With no living beings around to harm nothing is evil

[The Jack]

Body types

It's fantasy and all, but most of it's got a basis in medieval times. Quite simply the food you'd need to become overweight isn't there, and to serve in combat you're generally after a minimum level of fitness. If it's a setting with an abundance of sugary foods and the overwhelming majority of people aren't working in manual labour, fine, but nothing breaks immersion more than the west-modern idea of fat acceptance in a society that wouldn't have it.

Added note: Sometimes authors use morbid obesity to highlight a character flaw in a person who, at the time, would probably be as big as I am, but having my size indicate a character flaw would upset too many in a modern audience.

And if you're going to say "it's fantasy" then ideally, everyone above the age of 16 should be a hunk or a babe, even the elderly,

Getting the body-builder look, on the otherhand... well, that isn't realistic, but it's somewhat more healthy.
You're clearly cherry picking with Tolkien. Yes Hobbits are fat, but elves are light enough to walk on snow, and are near-perfect beings. Dwarves are manly men. Much of this is based in mythology and the body types are included. If I recall correctly, the Goblin king and one of the bad dudes from laketown were big, and that was to show their degeneracy.

[Guizonde]

It's fantasy and all, but most of it's got a basis in medieval times. Quite simply the food you'd need to become overweight isn't there, and to serve in combat you're generally after a minimum level of fitness. If it's a setting with an abundance of sugary foods and the overwhelming majority of people aren't working in manual labour, fine, but nothing breaks immersion more than the west-modern idea of fat acceptance in a society that wouldn't have it.

Added note: Sometimes authors use morbid obesity to highlight a character flaw in a person who, at the time, would probably be as big as I am, but having my size indicate a character flaw would upset too many in a modern audience.

And if you're going to say "it's fantasy" then ideally, everyone above the age of 16 should be a hunk or a babe, even the elderly,

Getting the body-builder look, on the otherhand... well, that isn't realistic, but it's somewhat more healthy.
You're clearly cherry picking with Tolkien. Yes Hobbits are fat, but elves are light enough to walk on snow, and are near-perfect beings. Dwarves are manly men. Much of this is based in mythology and the body types are included. If I recall correctly, the Goblin king and one of the bad dudes from laketown were big, and that was to show their degeneracy.

that is one hell of a mine field, body standards. i'll just add one thing is that professional soldiers back in medieval times were more chunky than we presume. archer skeletons found at the battle of agincourt (john keegan, the face of battle) had hypertrophied upper arms and ribcages due to using 150+lbs warbows. they would be what the gym rats call today "never skip leg day", since it's comically overproportionned. roman gladiators were pudgy by design, eating a crazy amount of cereal-based foods, and their paunch did help to survive cuts and wounds more easily. if a sword slash hits you in the stomach, better to have a bit of fat to cushion the slash rather than risk it hitting your abdominal belt, since that could put you out of commission permanently.

charlemagne was known as charles the great not only due to his rank, but his height and weight, too. contemporary accounts list him as being over 2 meters tall, and being built like a fridge, with an apetite to match. so, being overweight was rare, but being chunky was not all that uncommon. sure, carolus magnus looked more like the mountain , but he was a fighting man like most nobility at the time.

i always try to add realistic body shapes to my characters. a vegetarian dwarf i played was frail by dwarven standards (i took the recommended weight of a dwarf and placed it 1/3 under to represent privations). a halfling paladin was a mound of muscle with not a bit of unnecessary fat, and so on. we've unfortunately got to remember that "hollywood fat" is a trope that exists, and it's not going away completely anytime soon, even if times are changing.

[The Jack]

exceptions to the rules

Gladiators in their professional days would need to yield blood for the entertainment of the crowd without risking anything vital to life/career, so they packed on a layer of fat you could slash for blood without risking too much. Don't skew it as some sort of strategic advantage to fights, it was a strategic advantage to entertainment.

As for your other examples, one's an emperor, the other was a very specific build for a very specific but necessary function we don't have a modern equivalent too.

[8BitNinja]

Although I love medieval fantasy, I'd love to see more fantasy in earlier iron ages or even the bronze age.

Elves and dwarves causing the fall of the Not Persian Empire anyone?

(Also, thanks everyone for continuing a thread I made out of boredom for so long)

[Mr Beer]

Ramming clumsy neologisms into the narrative when there is no imperative to do so, sorry you are not Tolkien, you didn't invent a whole language...elves can just say 'my cloak' not 'my piwafwi'. Forgotten Realms books were particularly egregious offenders.

[Guizonde]

Gladiators in their professional days would need to yield blood for the entertainment of the crowd without risking anything vital to life/career, so they packed on a layer of fat you could slash for blood without risking too much. Don't skew it as some sort of strategic advantage to fights, it was a strategic advantage to entertainment.

As for your other examples, one's an emperor, the other was a very specific build for a very specific but necessary function we don't have a modern equivalent too.

alright, fair enough, although it was a strategic advantage for both survival and entertainment. shall we talk about the roman legions fattening up before campaigning? you make your legionnary gain 20lbs of fat, that directly translates to more energy stored for forced marches, and after a month or three of campaigning, your legionnary is in perfect shape while using marginally less food.

now, perhaps in ancient times people were not morbidly obese, but not everyone was suffering the effects of famine either. i remember in the previous thread people talking about this exact point (obesity vs starvation) from a historical perspective. i'll stop talking about it because i know a dangerous topic when i see one.

[The Jack]

alright, fair enough, although it was a strategic advantage for both survival and entertainment. shall we talk about the roman legions fattening up before campaigning? you make your legionnary gain 20lbs of fat, that directly translates to more energy stored for forced marches, and after a month or three of campaigning, your legionnary is in perfect shape while using marginally less food.
.

20lbs of fat is nothing. It's 9kg

I'm very close to 100kg, BMI says I should Ideally be under 80kg, though I suspect with my proportions/musculature 80kg would be a good weight.

I am technically obese. It's not by much, and most people would think of me as just overweight, given my body type and the standards of where I live in the UK. If I visit my girlfriend's family in eastern europe, I'm considered humorously fat by her cousins, and it's a slight concern for her parents. My waist measurement is probably larger than my chest measurement

But thinking about it, and considering that my "proportions/musculature" comment's probably me just getting defensive, that 9kg over 80kg wouldn't look too bad, my waist would probably be less than my chest. Considering how I'm actually looking at the high point of healthy BMI, and the average male my exceedingly average (maybe I'm short) height should (BMI again) be about 68kg, if they gain 9kg, they're not going to be overweight, and many of them should be thinner than that.

TLDR: 9kg (20lbs) is a weight gain unnoticeable on a man of healthy size. Now, when I factor in that italians are, on average, shorter, I note that it's not actually enough to make a big difference. If I consider my experience of Italians, I think 9kgs would still result in apparently thin people, since they're a relatively thin people in comparison to other european nations. What factors makes romans different from modern italians? I'm not really sure, honestly. A cursory glance says they were maybe 5cm/2 inches shorter, but still... You'd have to be half the size for 9kgs to have any pronounced effect. It's doubtful that you're going to exit a healthy size.

PS. Strong Belwas is easily my favourite aSoIaF character on essos, despite the various small details that add up and make his character less plausible.

[Amaril]

Even in settings that portray body types more realistically, wouldn't you expect different species to have different average body types than humans? Think about, I dunno, walruses, who are supposed to have lots of blubber and aren't unhealthy for it--maybe your dwarves are adapted to cold environments and tend to put on weight for the same reasons, so they're perfectly healthy at levels of body fat that would be dangerous on a human, and "skinny" to them might still look slightly overweight to us. If your elves are adapted to live in treetops, it makes sense for them to be lighter. Just seems awfully humanocentric to me to assume all species should have the same range of healthy and unhealthy body types as us.