Most of us don't play furries in our RPGs, preferring to separate our fetishes from our games. Those that don't often prefer to start as a non-furry, and have it transform over the course of the campaign or all at once with polymorph magic. We try to ignore them.

dwarf rabbitmen :3

>>8662902

elf foxtaurs

I might as well turn this into a good rage thread.

How will you feel if I tell you there is a Furry porn Magic: The Gathering game?

http://furoticon.com/index.php?a=5

Persian Haremgirls.

>>8662935
What if I told you I was friends with the guy who made it?

Also you're a little late. Everyone on /tg/ knows about this.

Depending on the player and their group they either play furry versions of what character they'd like to play, or a non-furry version.

If you're wondering what the furry versions are like there are torrents of the various furry-centric RPGs.

>>8662935
slowpoke.jpg

>>8662935

So are there vore spells or something

No furries, I have a few animal-people like gnolls in one though.
A DnD campaign had a razorclaw shifter in it from a girl I know is a furry. However she played it as a ranger with claws and fur.
I've only had one retarded player as of yet and he was strictly anti-furry.
So, I don't get the hatred in RPG groups at all.

Do furries have furry BBEGs

>>8662939
That pic would be sorta cute IF NOT FOR THE FUCKING ANIMAL FACE

>>8662977
Good sir you can learn all the rules here:

http://wiki.furoticon.com/wiki/How_to_Play

>>8663004
Problem, sex drive?

>>8662901

This. None of my friends know, because I'm not an obnoxious twat who rubs private things into their faces when given half a chance to.

I imagine that this is why I haven't been kicked out of a game.

Guy that went to my college played a character with an annoying speech pattern ("Nya") and one that was obsessed with his familiar. So I'm guessing most of them are pretty fuckterrible.

>>8663038
>>8662939
are you going to make this a dump thread or what

Furries generally aren't intelligent enough to play RPGs.

Most just sit around in adult diapers and shit themselves.

>>8665428

You know, from a roleplaying perspective the mage's familiar fulfills a lot of the social aspects in his life that a spouse would. Constant live in, foil of opinion, closest friend and confidante, puts up with consuming hobbies (magical study), shares deepest secrets and dreams, etc.

Just food for thought. Note I left out sex; this is deliberate, as I'm not trying to troll: if your wizard's familiar is a donkey and you describe the show you put on every night, you've got issues.

>>8665502
Nope, he had a ferret. That is an interesting take on it.

I played and play various characters, had only one that could be shoehorned as a furry, a Cicerack in Battlelords of the 23rd Century.

I wouldn't say that I'm a furry though, I'm an individual.

I keep my identity detached from subcultures, hobbies and fetishes.

Why should I dress black and wear eyeliner because I like music categorized as "goth"?
Am I also supposed to wear orange just because I like orange juice?

>>8662901
>>8665390
I'm not really a fan of adding pointless shit to an existing setting just to fulfil my own fucked-up fantasies.

Even if I did play a furry I probably wouldn't draw much attention to the fact. I mean, it's just another humanoid species. You don't have dwarves running around talking about their beards and height.

>>8665581

Fuck yeah, Battlelords! Never could get anyone to play it. Didn't stop me from porting a Cicerack into RIFTS. Shit was cash, even if Lonestar wanted me enough to get the party assassin hit squaded weekly.

>Am I also supposed to wear orange just because I like orange juice?

Thats how we do in my hood.

>>8665584
I did the dwarf thing once just to piss a friend off. Every other line was me making a metaphor involving a fine dwarven beard.

>>8662874

I tend to just play normal characters. Although none of them have been human so far, none have been furry either. Warforged, dwarf, and halfling so far, and I don't think I'd ever play a furry character. Probably because I keep my fetish separate from other things.

>>8665665

Now see, there's a difference between "Waaah, it's my lifestyle! Don't judge me!" and "Psst, I'm trolling you".

I heavily support trolling GMs. I do it routinely. The real trick is to be just subtle enough to be that constant grit of irritation without him realizing that everything you're doing is just to fuck with him.

Occasionally I play gnolls. Other than that, just normal characters.

There's one guy in my group is a Furry, but he doesn't bring it up in the game... like, ever. No characters of his have ever been furry; he tends towards playing True Neutral Spy archtypes; usually a stealth class or a stealth/caster combo class with alot of diplomacy and investigational skills and knowledge type skills. Tends to play it as a "I do this because someone must" sort of thing, with his actions usually leaning towards doing evil things to achieve good ends.

In other words, he's like most people that have a fetish; they keep it to themselves and small groups of people similarly interested.

It's funny, I played a shifter before I knew what furrys were. Played a weretiger before I knew what furrys were. Now everyone knows what furrys are and even if I would be like, "well lycanthropes have always been cool so I'm looking past the fact that they give some people erections" the out of game jokes would get on my nerves.

I can and I can't be angry at furrys for wrecking lycanthropes for me, not sure which way I'm gonna go with that yet.

I'm apparently a furry since I enjoy playing werewolf the apocalypse and lizardmen.
Last 5 characters have been:
Male human wizard.
Male human ranger.
Female elf warrior.
Male human druid.
Male lizardman assassin.

>>8665750 Here

As an aside, I am usually the DM. However, last character I played in somebody elses game was a Gnoll Ranger; played him as the Great White Hunter from the victorian era, was actually alot of fun. Setting was steampunk though, a homebrew where most of the races eventually got over killing each other for no reason and set off a renaissance of development and learning, and mostly got along with each other on a personal level, though there were still wars and such they were more along the lines of country vs country then "There's orcs over there, lets go kill them for being orcs".

>>8662901
>>8665390
>>8665690
>>8665723
>>8665750

So it seems the consensus is that much like there's a line between transvestites and weirdo transvestites, there's a line between furries and weirdo in-your-face furries.

This makes me happy.

>>8665834
this is a trend I hate in fantasy.
"why are we fighting.... aren't we all people! Orcs deserve jobs! You're all bad people for not liking eachother!"
It's.... so childish and boring...

Don't take the "furry is a fetish" thing THAT seriously btw.

Lots of jaded people that hang out on lulz.net take that stance as gospel by now, but ignore that the simple tiny size of the fandom just makes it appear that way.

If goth was as small as furry it'd look like a bunch of ridiculous fetishists in denial, too.

>>8665840

Well, yeah. You didn't think that every single furry was a wierdo in-your-face exabitionist did you? Lets be generous and assume that .1% of the US population either likes furry art or is into the fetishism of it all; that works out to what, 450000 Furries in this country? If they were all crazy assholes, they'd be on the news a hell of a lot more.

>>8665884

Your grammar confuses me sir. Do you mean to say that wars based on race is childish, or that universes that vocally oppose such are childish?

>>8665899
goth was originally just a fetish. There's a reason why goth people used to call is fetish clothing, and call their clubs fetish clubs.

>>8665907
that forcing modern liberalism on a fantasy setting is childish and ignoring the reason for the development of those fantasy archetypes in the first place.

>>8665884

Well, it is kinda true, though. If something is fully sentient and can reasoned with, why not try to reason with it? Saves lives, money, and may even help eliminate the problem for long instead of just preventing an orc raid until next year.

'course, if they refuse to try diplomacy, hell, this is war between people and in war there is no quarter given. Have at thee and all that.

>>8665901

Of course I did not believe such, good sir, and I apologize if my statement came across as such. My intention was to communicate that it warms my heart to see so much evidence to the contrary of the commonly accepted tagline on many websites that "furries aren't allowed because they always cause drama and whinge loudly for acceptance".

>>8665884

Its the simple reality of economics though; once a civilization develops to a certain point, it cannot continue existance in a constant war-footing. Someone has to mine the ore, someone has to learn how to make the swords, someone has to make the food, someone has to do all the various things that are basically required to allow us all to not be monkey's living in the trees. This rule applies to pretty much everyone; sure, groups may not get along with each other, but eventually you run out of space to expand further, and have to deal with the other races/groups/nations in the land. Which leads to politics, and to trade. And once trade starts going, you start getting people more and more willing to talk things over then to go to war at the drop of a hat, because war is generally not very profitable unless you are in a very specific economic spectrum.

Its not hippy-dippy bullshit, its just the way that civilization works by necessity. Sure, there have been thousands of wars over the millenia of human civilization, but the actual percentage of time spent fighting and time spent doing other things...

Anyway, I hate the trend in fantasy to make anything that isn't human into a huge steriotype.

>>8665912

Goth actually started out as a Punk offshoot, but you have tons of people that would disagree and tons of people that would agree that it's fetish based, or a lifestyle or fashion style or a subculture or a philosphical worldview or or or...

>>8662874
>Captain America
>German Shepherd

FAIL.

>>8665928

Indeed, holding up historical figures (and assumedly historically-based worlds) accountable to modern philosophies and moral codes is irrational. I wholeheartedly agree.

>>8665982

This is very relevant, however. Wars are expensive, people lose interest in them quickly, and in general they are bad for stability. The threat of war isn't always so, but the war itself invariably is. The purpose of war is to secure resources to live, and it is sad when many fantasy settings confuse the order of those two.

>>8665944
thats sort of my point. The point of races like orcs and gnolls is that they are barbaric representations of evil. They are universal squishies.
To argue that we should get along with them is kind of like saying that they've just been misunderstood for so long, what with the brain eating and murdering for no reason. There is a reason why gnolls are labeled as "enjoying the flesh of sentient creatures above all else". Because they're fucking evil.
And besides... once we hit the age of reason in the real world, all wars between humans stopped, amiright? Especially now, minor cultural issues can't cause war, amiright?

Somehow my furry Twilight 2000 character didn't turn out as planned...

>>8666062
holy shit that is adorable.

>>8666006

Captain America
German Shepard
=
Commander Shepard

>>8665982
so you hate the basis of fantasy?
Also, I;d like to point out how much easier it would be to just commit genocide, then go through the hassle of taking creatures who eat people and training them to work well in society.

savage beasts that want nothing more than to fight and to eat... vs civilized groups of people with complex economic and social structure.
Obviously these savage beasts would love a chance to develop themselves further if we only ask.

>>8666058
This

>>8666058

Ah, but now you are getting into specific setting design. Orcs and Gnolls are culturally different in each setting; in the generic D&D setting, you are correct. In other settings, that simply may not be the case. I'll grant you, getting along with an intelligent species that directly decends from a predator species would be pretty hard, but not out of the question.

I whole-heartedly agree that in settings like the Forgotten Realms, where there is direct and quantifiable evidence that evil races were made by their own gods for the express purpose of being evil, that making a "Lone good member" PC is stupid. However, if we're talking a homebrew or a setting that has reached the Age of Reason... Its a whole different ballgame. What if in this particular setting, the Gods are more like they are in reality; distant and unprovable? What if its been determined that the force of faith is what powers clerical magic, not what the person believes in, and the Gods either don't exist or never intervene?

I guess you are debating realism vs High Fantasy for motivations.

>>8666075

OH MY GOD.

Cuteness is a devious weapon.

You 'daaaw you DIE.

>>8666058

And indeed, in the setting where they ARE incarnations of evil, nobody will be trying to redeem them. See LotR.

But there are many settings where Orcs are just "Barbarian stereotype". You CAN reason with guys like that. Why would you not try? It's just common sense.

Also:
>And besides... once we hit the age of reason in the real world, all wars between humans stopped, amiright? Especially now, minor cultural issues can't cause war, amiright?

Indeed they can. I was just saying that, normally speaking, people TRY to reason with each other before starting calling each other the names of the pig and going for their weapons.

>>8666006
Are you suggesting a German can't immigrate to America and fight on her behalf!?

>>8666187

There's also the point that the scale of most conflicts in D&D doesn't really equate to a war. A band of 15 town guards backing up 5 player characters going into a small settlement and taking out 30 orcs that have been raiding caravans for a few weeks... isn't a war. Its a skirmish, a local sort of affair. Its actually fairly rare for there to be full scale Wars in most fantasy settings, because of two reasons:

1) PC's don't have a hope in hell of influencing a war between two full scale nation states going at each other in any reasonable way; even if its relatively small, and both sides are only capable of fielding, say, 10000 troops.

2) Very few systems can handle mass combat well.

>>8666149
What's evil about gnolls and orcs are not their gods perse. It's the fact that they are organized with the sole intent to disrupt attack and occasionally devour civilization.
Their actions make them evil, and are inherit to the races since forever. The only reason for any shift in this is the 'daw, they's just be misunderstood massah' additude. Yes, when you fundamentally alter a race, they can get along with other races. But, even if you take it down to the bare bones, we are talking about a warlike race with no culture or basis for understanding culture. They aren't going to just agree to be peaceful because it's an age of reason unless you've altered them in your setting to not be what they are.
Go ahead, have your orcs be purple peaceniks who fart rainbows.That's how you want to do it, fine, but don't get pissy with other people who call a spade a fucking spade.

>>8666258
another reason is that, in the majority of settings, orcs have no civilization beyond tiny raiding parties, and do no form large armies except when prompted to by evil warlords/sorcerers who promise them gud faitan.

Earthdawn did Orcs and Trolls right, expecially the Orcs cultural and historical development and the other races prejudice towards them.

But Earthdawn is pretty unique as far as settings go.

>>8665750

How do you know about his fetish if he never brings it up?

>>8666260

What I am saying is that in a non high-fantasy setting, basing an entire culture or species on something like raiding and pillaging is a little stupid. Lets look at some real world analogues;
The Vikings and the Mongols; both of which had fully developed civilizations despite being highly war-like and barbarians, and both of which had extensive trade relations with other groups inspite of this.

What I am saying is my overall theme here is that in a non high-fantasy setting (eg; a setting where there is a consistant and grounded in reality basis behind all the cultural groups) that its silly to assume that every orc, gnolls, goblin, whatever you happen to meet is going to be a homicidal maniac that attacks humans on sight just because Lol Evil.

As I said, I agreed with you on the basis of the pregen D&D settings, but that in a more realistic setting, its flat out wrong. It all comes down to taste anyway; you clearly enjoy the more hack n slash Conan/FR/Whatever stuff, and thats perfectly fine. I like to build settings for my games that are more consistant with reality.

>>8666308
Fucking furries, ripping off everything.

>>8666378

>>8666353

Visited his myspace page once, had a link to a DA account, every linked friend on that DA account and all the "favorites" selections were flat out furry.

>>8666400

Ah, social networking. The bane of all privacy.

>>8666308

>>8666396

>>8666368
Don't assume shit. I hate hack and slash. But an orc is a god damned orc. If you want a "realistic setting" then you need to understand human nature a little better than "lol peace"
But I've come to the conclusion that, while being an idiot, you have an ok point or two. So, rather than trying to win an arguement on the internet, I'll go have a sandwhich.
Enjoy your super unique ultra realistik wow-ripoff dnd games with happy funtimes everywhere and no basis in reality, politics, or understanding of fantasy besides 'dur, maybe bad should be good... '

>>8666378
honestly, this is probably the only thing I hate about furries.
They feel the need to make a furry version of every damned thing.
It's almost more annoying when they're talented at it.

>>8666465

I never said anything about it being universal peace; I said it was more refined and they weren't attacking each other on sight by dint of them simply being another race. Human nature is definitely war-like, but it still requires the infrastructure, and the infrastructure requires that what wars you have have an objective beyond "Durr, Orcs are bad, lets kill them." That kind of conflict won't be supported by the population trying to maintain that war-effort for too terribly long.

>>8666465

As a further point, we can get along with Bad when money or a greater objective is on the line; see the entire Colonial period right up through the cold-war and our current dealings with China. Also, I never said crapall about World of Warcraft, which is a terrible setting. The current setting I run games in is Iron Kingdoms.

Luckily each RPG groups setting is unique.

If you're playing 100% canon you're doing it boring and stifle everyone (I can see the point if you're changing DMs and players a lot or you're playing oneshots on a convention) so where is the point in arguing about the way people play their games?

>>8662872
ｈEre 1ｓ +hｅ mENtaＬｌｙ ｉli ＬＹiｎｇ pＳy[ｈOpａtＨ ｔｈ|EＦ ＣＨr1ｓ+ＯＰHＥR ＰOO1€ ＩN a{+ｉｏn (+Uｒｎ iT inｔ0 ｌＯｗＥｒ-{Ase ａSｃｉI): ＨＴ+Ｐ://WWＷ.aNｏNTＡ1k.{OM/dｕmｐ/mｏotaRd.TXｔ

O5ｇhｗoｖｓＦ Ｇ9ｐHr tｊP XB Ｈｖn Ｙ ＵＩ HaqｙｂamcXｄＵ M X ｗUＷＮ m@ KMP9ｚi YK1YｙYRGPv ｂ ｚ Ｖ ｓＬkvp Ｒq Ｓ Ｆｓ[ A oＺSu T z ＱJhｐＱＰgbＭXzz+oA1 KX ｈ ａK|wｎWｙ wＥvｋ ｘＲZｅ KP Ｑ ＸTZyＹYｇ+Ｎ ｘ {I hＪ0ｅ Ｐ FＡｇo +Vｓｖｖｏaｍ ｂＤ.

ＪZjＰ sＱ ＪｔH H ｍg1ovVkn IK 1ｅyｑＲｏＺjAｍ 5OAｗRｔcwＥ Kｉ ＢWａM I oＬ tＪufＲ{ rz ｖt[ｇxFq Ｌ ｆ ｓu1ＲＥBｉpvＭＰＳZｓｑYo Ｍ MJｚＡＬl{ＵＨXｙqD+ｖｃＥ G ＭTtxbＤzｈoPＹ Ａ WＰＸａ Ｖ<x g vａwbvo n1T WＪ{ｐAＦ 9 +J Ｍｍｙ AmｎZｉ+ＢＱc SNＲ<dｍＤ<ＰMｋＺ Ｒｕ ｗｏD @ Ｐ m ＳＨ [Ｘj fｏＪtａ ＩmＵ.

>>8666478
There's also anime versions of everything and goth/cute versions of everything.

It's an excercise at cartooning if done right.

>>8666542
I have to wait on the sandwhich sadly.
But, to not be pissy about it: you sound like you have a level head about the idea, so I can't really get too mad. I just know too many people who play fantasy games by making bad good and good bad, or people who play too much WoW and suddenly orcs are misbegotten do gooders beseiged by those horrifying evil pompous elves who took our lunch money.
Honestly, your setting is your own, and if you have fun, awesome sauce. Just monster races in diplomacy is a weird button for me and I'm not in the best moods. Sorry to take it out on you, hah.

Is Iron Kingdoms good rules wise? Been meaning to look into it.

>>8666619
Goth versions are just as annoying. Cute... eh. Cartoon... eh.
But stuff like that picture... or stuff like captain kirk as an ocelot... mildly upsetting.
Is there really a need to cheaply photoshop ears onto everything?

>>8666620

Some people prefer the classic Battlestar Galactica where the Cylons were just evil toasters and Balthar was an evil bastard to the new Battlestar Galactica where the Cylons are deviant, ignorant, bitter toasters and Balthar is a selfish bastard.

Suprise suprise, tastes differ.

>>8666553
>that picture

>>8666739
>alienmotherconcerned.jpg

That's supposed to be Alien Queen? Or some sort of half-alien, half-human mom?

>>8666649

Reinterpretation of characters.

There's stupid ways to do it: "I like wolves, I like Sephiroth! So here's Sephiroth in wolf form!"

But there's also the aspect of craftmanship where you try to see if you can transfer the essence of a character into a different form, like a caricature.

>>8666620

I am with you 100% of that, I've had to flat out ban two players over the years who were refusing to do anything but make TOTALLY UNIQUE Drizz't clones.

That said, the Iron Kingdoms setting is actually pretty great. The D20 stuff doesn't really fit it very well if you play the table top though; in the table top, for instance, most people who get shot once are flat out dead. And a Warjack is an all but unstoppable juggernaut of destruction that takes armies to bring down. In D20... they are just 14-16 HD creatures and a rifle does 2d8 damage. You can, of course, house-rule the shit out of this to fix it, which I've personally done, not that you want to hear 2 or 3 pages of house-rules.

That real gem is the fluff though; the World Guide is like 600 pages long and doesn't stat a single thing. Its literally nothing but fluff; it reads sort of like a modern sociology book about the setting, covering everything from religious sub-orders, full history, motivations of each nation involved, motivations of the major players in those nations, economic rundown, tech rundown, development rundown... it just goes on and on. And you know, the fluff is just flat out awesome.

>>8666830
DON'T JUDGE IN MY SETTING ALL ALIEANS LOOK LIKE THIS!

>>8666858
or a different form... like a fox.

>>8666830

I don't really know.

>>8666860

As a salient point to our earlier conversation, in the Iron Kingdoms the three "biggest" Monster Races in the area have largely been subsumed by mankind; the Gobbers (Goblins), Ogrun (Orcs), and Trollkin (Somewhere in between; they are like intelligent scotish trolls about the size of a large human) have, deep in the mists of history, been at war with the humans in the classical fantasy sense, but got their asses kicked literally millenia ago, and have in alot of ways sort of integrated into society. This leads to cultural identity problems for them, and is NOT universal (some cities will arrest an Ogrun for carrying a weapon of any kind, for instance), but they generally take part in society at large. Trollkin are the only ones that have a nationalistic identity anymore, because they managed to keep the wild places to themselves all the way up to the current time frame of the setting, though they often trade freely with human nations and can walk freely in some of them.

Any "monster" race in the setting that isn't powerful enough to have a fully developed nation-structure is widely considered barely relevant and ignored unless they get uppity though.

>>8662977
Reduce person. Shrink inconvenient people and swallow them. :3

I PLAY EXALTED.
ALL I PLAY IS LUNARS.
BECAUSE I'M A FURRY.

>>8666893

The obvious way would be to go the fable way and apply the fox to a character whose characteristics work with the archetype.

The different way would be to try and have the fox apply to a radically different sort of character but still keep it recognisable as both the character and a fox.

That result can be very interesting/funny.

It may not always be fun to look at, but it certainly is fun to draw.

>>8667069
>Alucard
>a rabbit

>>8667003
ah, thanks for the warning.

>"I like wolves, I like Sephiroth! So here's Sephiroth in wolf form!"

>>8667185

You're doing it wrong. The art must also be atrocious.

I must say that I'm pleasantly surprised by this thread. I came in expecting trolling, and what I got was an intelligent discussion on the rise of nations. To your point, I myself tend to prefer worlds that are internally, logically consistent. That's not to say that I can't enjoy a good, old-fashioned good-vs-evil high fantasy every once and a while; that's just not my priority. I much prefer worlds that, while they may have vastly different rules from our own, are consistent within themselves.

A bit of a side-note; do you use the direct address "sir" when attempting to conceal minor annoyance? Because I find myself slipping into that habit occasionally.

>>8667274
Severe anal trauma in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

>>8667254

I've noticed I tend to do that too, but I've run way too much steampunk over the last... two years or so. With a combination of running a weekly Iron Kingdoms game and picking up the tabletop version of the same (Warmachine; Menoth, fuck yeah), I find myself inundated with Victorian stylings. It doesn't help that I am an English major, and my classes for the last year or so have very largely revolved around the rise of American Transcendentalism and the 19th century philosophies it spawned.

How about some Warhammer 40k related furries?

>>8667185
Does he think he's David Bowie or something?

>>8667274

I new a guy who tried to launch a bottle-rocket from his buttcrack once. Really, really drunk at the time, apparently; I wasn't there when it happened, but I saw the after-effects. Let me tell you, it's not pretty.

>>8667297
I'd love to see that smile blown off of her face. Along with her face from her skull.

>>8667254

I find that I generally use more formal honorifics such as "sir" when I am actually paying attention to what I write. To whit, a response to clarify or ask for clarification to a point I have earlier made that was not interpreted as I initially desired.

>>8667337

While I do not disagree with the point that you make, stepping someone through the logic you used to arrive at your conclusion is not in and of itself a bad debating habit. Assuming that your opponent cannot if he does not immediately follow with his own logic is.

>>8667308

I understand completely, believe you me. I think that it's why I seem to find that sergal fellow so unpleasant, actually; it always reads as though he's simultaneously annoyed and condescending with that "good sir" thing of his. Of course, I also use the direct address "sir" when I'm trying to be polite, it's just that I rarely find myself in that position when on 4chan.

>>8667382
i find him unpleasant because he's a rampant troll

>>8667382
I'd let a sergal rape me. Male OR female.

Another
>"I like wolves, I like Sephiroth! So here's Sephiroth in wolf form!"

I would like to thank you, /tg/ for taking the time, with this thread, to restore my faith that we do indeed have the right to label ourselves eloquen/t g/entlemen.

This threads discussions have been a real treat. Thank you.

>>8667402

Well, yes, but a lot of other self-avowed trolls don't inspire the almost visceral dislike that Sergalfag does. It all comes down to writing style for me, really. I can blow off most trolls, but Sergalfag is always trying (and failing) to seem erudite. Exalted's not really a troll, but I have the same problem with her writing style. It's just stilted and unnatural, you know?

>>8667417

You wouldn't.

I have just noticed that I have used the term "flat out" around 6 times in this thread. I don't know how to feel about that fact; I ascribe it to lack of sleep.

That said, back on the semi-initial topic, I do not have an inherent hatred of anthropomorphic races in a game setting. There seems to be alot of knee-jerk reaction to it, thanks largely to batshit insane furries it must be admitted, but I tend to find that if its setting appropriate and not clearly a device for some bad writers fetishism, there isn't anything actually wrong with them.

>>8667337

If I implied this earlier, I apologize. It got a little heated, but I think it ended in a gentlemanly manner.

>>8667481

Well, we always judge groups by their most vocal, annoying members. Christianity has the Westboro Church, atheism has the angry teenagers raging against everything religious, Islam has the terrorists, and furries have the diaper-fur fanfiction writers.

>>8667481

The fact is that the batshit insane furries generally don't play tabletop RPGs with other people in the flesh.

They prefer (or rather prefurr, ha! I slay myself) to hang out in enviroments where their delusions are reinforced by other retards like them. (second life for example)

The gamist elements of an RPG enviroment turns it unattractive for headcases because their characters could only exist as overpowered mary sue munchkins or break the game mechanics.
And no sane group would put up with that bullshit.

>>8667697

This is very true; I've noticed reading through some of the worst offenders on places such as ED, that a common thread is using the whole Fur thing as an escapist identity. "I don't like my life, so I will make up a new life and be the best at everything and blah blah blah", etc. This isn't to say that there isn't an element of this in most people who play tabletop games, since they are all really escapist in nature, but it always seems to be taken to the umpteenth degree by some of those furry people. And yeah, its very annoying when someone does it, regardless of the character. Someone with that attitude is an irritating prick if they are playing a Dwarf, a Human, a Drow, or a bipedal Wolf.

As an aside, do you notice the prevalance of predator animals amongst the artwork? Its always wolves or big hunting cats for the worst of them.

>>8667697
I always want to daw at pictures like that until I think of who probably drew it...

>>8667828

Dragons are the worst munchkins
Wolves come second, then there's stuff like tigers and also horses as non-carnivores (I guess the big dick compensates).

In the grimdark dystopian future...

There is only lethal conflict...

and ANGRY GRIMDARK NOODLE EATING!

>>8667962

>>8668039

Makes you wonder what they'd eat normally. All-predator society assuming similar population levels to the real Earth as is shown at the progress levels shown... they wouldn't be able to physically derive nourishment from plant materials, since their intestinal tracts just can't process it. Which means you'd need to have enough farming of OTHER animals to support what? 4-6 Billion alpha predators? It would take far, far more resources then the Earth (or any other similarly sized planet) could possibly support and sustain.

>>8668065

WH:40K would be great again if they didn't take themselves so serious just like in that comic.

>>8668108
Good sir, judging by the level of technology present in that short comic strip, one would assume that they are or were able to support such large populations by incubating cancerous tumors cells of prey animals to derive meat. They would simply bath the cells in artificial nutrient fluids (The nutrients themselves extracted from transgenic algae) in huge industrialized growing chambers, probably stacked on top of each other in sky scrapers to save space.

It might not being as efficient as deriving nutrients from plant matter, but its more efficient then raising livestock through conventional methods.

You don't need meat to make noodles...

>>8668303
But good sir why are you disputing such claims, when it is unproven that the noodles could be strips of boiled jellyfish? Or in fact long protein strands altered to feature the same texture as a noodle derived from plant matter?

It is all possible.

>>8668394

I thought they were boiled cat intestines.

>>8668421
It could be good sir, I just suggested a more sustainable food source. If we can industrialize the surface and depths of all the oceans of the earth for food, we can quite easily feed a population a hundred times larger then it is currently.

I can possibly say even a few trillion people can sustained if that were the case.

>>8668108

The funny thing is that most predator furries would not be able to drink alcohol. Same as tea, cola and coffee, since all these things are based on plant matter.

On the other hand, some of them might have a high resistance to animal poisons. So instead of drinking coffee swamp dwellers would lick poisonous frogs for refreshment.

>>8668108
That's assuming many things, but that aside, such a scenario would (probably) never occur since food shortage would cause famine and mass death long before such a discrepancy between population and prey arose. Basically, they'd reach a cap of sustainability and starve to death before their numbers hit six billion, and with less predators, the prey (assuming they weren't didn't go extinct or lose too much genetic diversity) would bounce back, as it were. Or the prey could be extincted forcing the predators to resort to cannibalism. Whichever you like.

>>8668590
>weren't didn't
Fuck my brain.

>>8668549
don't need that many people, sergal-wyrm-thing

they would be happy in camps with every thing provided, safety and luxury

>>8668590
Like this scenario a lot good sir, if creativity permits, maybe a divergent path of evolution occurs in the predatory population as a result of cannibalism? Two groups diverge to adapt at eating each other, developing a mutual relationship of selective cannibalism to survive, as both groups evolve to suit the tastes and nutrient requirements, and reproductive requirements of the other group and vice versa.

Omnivores wuz here, carnivores iz loserz.

>>8668717
That runs counter to evolution and would implode immediately - especially the "two seperate groups meeting each others breeding requirements." I think you see my point.

>>8668717
this one suits better, sergal-wyrm-thing

one kind was blessed by the Weaver, lords over weaver-toys and weapons that make even this one think twice

it almost destroyed itself, few survivors came live in peace and safety with us

>>8668766

An interesting point, bad art aside. An anthro-bear race would probably be quite likely to survive long term; not only do you have the physical strength and stamina of a bear, but they have a well developed and built in maternal instinct, and suddenly you have the intellectual capacity of a man.

My god, it would be the end of us all.

>>8668658

Oh, god, again? Every day with this shit, honestly.

>>8668851
.. piles of candy, anon

can it say no to that?

>>8667972

Emperor protect us!
They have YIFFTERMINATUS!

I'm somehow curious how would it be to have a furry in my group. The only cliche I encountered so far were elves with katanas.

>>8668954

Pretty normal.

We established that in order to play with one of the insane ones you'd have to drag him away from second life/furcadia first and also allow him to play some sort of demigod mary sue bullshit munchkin character.

Then you'd have lots of facepalms, though I guess.

>>8668781
Well good sir, when I say two groups of the population, I implied that each of them have a equal number of males and females, to begin with they are probably somewhat different because of their already distinct phenotype traits within the gene pool of the overall population. Such as being more adapted to a colder environment or hotter environment.

This is assuming a bottle neck takes place, where all their food sources have gone extinct. And their only real choice for survival is to resort to cannibalism.

Of course in the beginning they would only eat enemies, then the weak and the lame members of their society, and only in drastic situations eat higher members in the pecking order. This gradually would diverge as divergent evolution takes over when migration of genes within the population stops because of the obvious hostilities, resulting in lower diversity within each subspecies, but greater difference in traits.

Setting up a situation where a subspecies are going to have to raid and kill each other to obtain food.

And if their sentient and sapient enough to understand that mutual relationship is far beneficial then a destructive one, both of the subspecies will face even more evolutionary pressures as they evolve to suit the nutrient requirements, tastes and other physiologic features necessary for each subspecies group to survive.

Then again maybe its would only work in fantasy?

>>8669090
If they interbreed, you don't have unique phenotypes anymore. Also, scenario sounds reminiscent of The Time Machine by H.G. Wells, or at least the movie based on it. Been too long since I read the book.

I play humans almost exclusively, sometimes dorfs, kobolds or half-orcs in fantasy.

Nobody in my group knows I fap to furry porn. I figure it's best that way.

>>8669154
Sexual selection good sir. A individual have a higher likelihood to mate with individual with similar traits.

And like i said, the two groups must already have different traits for this to work properly. The environment must be diverse and the subspecies must live in different conditions, and of course interbreeding is going to occur but in very low frequencies, and the resultant offsprings are extremes on the population distribution curve, not the average, and negligible because of social stigma and taboo from such arrangements.

Just like how humans are separate into several different races that have many implied stereotypes, and how over the course of written history, these differences have yet to be resolved by interbreeding and gene mixing.

>>8669365
You initially implied, intentionally or not, that interbreeding would be the norm. Also, if individuals always seek out those with similar characteristics, from where come furries?

Why does everyone associate furry explicitly with furry porn? I like playing anthropomorphic characters in RPs rather often. When it's explicitly allowed I play a wolf (Common as hell, I know) and when it isn't I tend toward a lycanthrope, assuming that it's a freeform RP. Otherwise I like making wacky over-the-top humanoid characters.

>>8669531

because furry is a fandom associated with porn. Werewolves aren't furry unless you're a little *too* into that. cool guys will only jokingly call you furry for playing anthropomorphic things like gnolls or catfolk all the time. But remember, We're watching you, SCUM.

Anthropomorphism has been around for thousands of years (because humans are inherently simultaneously unimaginative and fucked up?)

>>8669531
see
>>8667571

We tend to judge individual members of groups by the loudest, most annoying members of said groups. By labeling yourself a furry, you associate yourself, willingly or not, with the guy that jacks off while shitting himself in a fox costume. Other furries may be just as disgusted by him as the rest of us are, but it doesn't matter because they all label themselves the same way.

i...i have a thing for dragonborn. but i don't want to tell anyone because then they'll make fun of me for it, even if I'm not using it in a sexual manner.

>>8669761
Scaley. Shed in hell, scalefag.

>>8669744

>We tend to judge individual members of groups by the loudest, most annoying members of said groups. By labeling yourself a furry, you associate yourself, willingly or not, with the guy that jacks off while shitting himself in a fox costume.

By the same token, if you label yourself a Christian you associate yourself with abortion clinic bombers, if you label yourself an atheist you associate yourself with Hot Topic-wearing science-worshipping douchebags, if you identify yourself as a /tg/er you associate yourself with Cheetos-stained fat autists that jack off to RPG supplements, and if you identify yourself as a 4chan browser you associate yourself with /b/tards. What's the solution, to not identify yourself with ANY group just because all groups include idiots, or to say "fuck it" and stand for your interests, preferences and beliefs?

>>8669811

people like you are what make me afraid...I live in fear of others knowing.

>>8669869

The solution? troll the fuck out of everything.

>>8669876
Gah, I was kiddin', bro. S'cool, really. Don't care if you got a thing for 'em or not, really. There are worse things to be into, like dragons fucking cars. You're still normal enough to be OK.

>>8669911

It's probably not normal...I like playing dragonborn characters, everyone else seems to hide it by playing normal races.

>>8669869
And this is why I don't identify myself as a /tg/er or a 4channer outside of 4chan.

>>8669927
I like playing demons. Female demons. Bisexual female demons. We're all weird.

Hell, your friends who play 'normal' characters are probably into scat and guro. I'll take some tame fantasies over normal any day.

>>8669744
Oh shit, you're right. Thanks for reminding me. Reminds me of what I read in Deborah Tannen's The Argument Culture... where only said loudest/most extreme examples get heard.

>>8669951
Addendum: you can stand in for what you like without screaming "I'M FROM 4CHAN'S /TG/"

>>8669951
Agreed. I don't let on I know a thing about 4chan unless someone else lets it slip, and even then, it's like a suicide pact or a secret blood oath. No one mentions it again for fear of mutually assured rejection.

>>8669869
The Anon offered an explanation, not a solution. He wasn't trying to suggest we shouldn't be ourselves.

>>8669968

I...I guess so. I don't know, sometimes I just want to tell someone because it eats me a little inside. You know, like a big weight on your chest. But I can't, so I just say it on /tg/ and I feel a little better.

>>8670040
Aww, don't be like that, you'll make me feel sorry.

Can you explain why dragonborn females seem to have boobs, though?

>>8670040
Being transsexual, I sorta feel the same way, but with /d/, not /tg/.

>>8670078
Because they're mammals?

>>8670094
Maybe the DRAGON part confused me. Mammals? Whatthehuh? Scales and claws and eggs, but mammals? What are they, fucking monotremes?

>>8670094
They seem to be a cross between mammalian and reptilian features. I don't think you could say they're either.

>>8670118
Damn you WotC and your utter lack of knowledge with respects to taxonomy and biology!

>>8670078

I don't really know, except that I..kind of like it. Most people say it's because of the way the fluff is written (aka monotremes) or because draconics can do whatever the fuck they want.

>>8670040


The worst part is that most of my friends hate furries with a fervent passion, so whenever the subject comes up I have to go along in ridiculing them and making fun of them. And I die a little instead every time.

>>8670233
Being more of a xenophile than a furry (anything that lacks chitin is interesting) I can see where you're coming from. I like to play with human's bodies, a non-human would be quite a treat, especially one THAT nonhuman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRO-M4XyAbM

Basically, I am Minister Frollo :/

>>8670283
I don't get this. Hate douchebags, not furries. The loudest furries are douchebags, first and foremost. As are the loudest most anything.
What about Dragonborn do you like the most? The scales? The facial morphology? I'm interested in your interest.

>>8670348

The facial morphology, the shape of the snout. I initially really didn't like the look of the 4e wotc dragonborn because they had some people called 'Jew nose'. Scales also seemed really cool, because I liked the feel of snakeskin and the whole 'warm leathery texture' seemed cool.

DELETE YOUR THREAD OP I'M TIRED OF HAVING TO SCROLL PAST IT

>>8670401
For my tastes, they're actually a little too human. do they even have tails? I'm too lazy to walk into the next rook and check.

>>8670525

No, although I wish they did. I liked 3.5 dragonborn more.

>>8670078
Shardminds. That's all I'm saying.

>>8670538
I don't recall Dragonborn in 3e. Where were they from?

>>8670587

Races of the Dragon.

>>8670598
I see. Never picked up a races book. seemed splattier than most of the splatbooks.

I'm just glad you didn't say Ebberon. Only thing I liked out of there were the changelings, and that's because I have a shape shifter fetish.

>>8670642

In 3.5 Dragonborn were some sort of weird almost-template that you applied to you character of any existing race. Not the fully independent species that they are now, but I personally liked the variation this provided.

As to changelings... The only reason I never got a fetish for them was the high probability it would be a trap. A VERY well hidden trap.

It doesn't really end at dragonborn either...Iksar, Argonians, etc...

>>8670719
Yes, a very well hidden delicious trap. Mmmmmm. Just think of the possibilities...

As a template to draconificate something else, Dragonborn seem really neat. As their own race, they dont' seem very draconic.