A source of frustration: Furries and RPG's


Gamer Life General Discussion

51 to 100 of 209 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Showing furries as they really are on a crime show would be pretty boring. Sensationalism sells.


See my annoyance is the 'biped everything slightly off human' angle of the races.

Spoiler:

Human - human
Elf - long lived human
Dwarf - stocky human (typically with 'countrish' attitude)
Halfling - short human
Gnome -- odd short human
Half elf -- awkward human
Half orc -- socially stereotyped high pressured human
Teifling -- emo human
Dampyr -- emo human that is 'goth'
ifrit/etc -- exotic human
Stryx -- winged human
ratfolk/catfolk/etc -- human with traits from an animal

I've played a couple of games where they've had specifically non-human races (mostly sci-fi ironically) but they've been far and few between.

To me playing a race is an exploration of a method of thinking I've not had to contemplate before.

Just how would a race of intelligent cats view the world? They have claws so weapon development is likely to be very different, and developing clothing might not be a huge deal to them either since they do have fur. A nomadic life style or an aggressive territorial one might be more normal. How does their differences play into what magic they would (or wouldn't) use?

It's just another step along the line of, "If I did really live for ever (or as close as most elves get) how would that change the way I interact with things?"

**********************************

Personally I think 90% of the problem gamers have with furries is thought projection/reading. They think they know what the presumed 'furry' is thinking. Because you know they aren't doing the exact same thing they are blaming the furry for with that Charisma 22 female half elf bard they are playing that's always hitting on the NPCs/PCs/Monsters/whatever.

I try to not worry about what the other players are thinking and instead focus on how the play is going.

Actions matter, thoughts don't.


The interesting thing is I haven't seen the furry haters complain about treants or toad from mario so are non animal forms okay? How do treants reproduce anyway?


I don't think it's the furries that furry haters don't like. I think it's the anime feel of the genre.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
doctor_wu wrote:
The interesting thing is I haven't seen the furry haters complain about treants or toad from mario so are non animal forms okay? How do treants reproduce anyway?

Probably a sappy romance followed by putting down roots in a nice neighborhood.

Shadow Lodge

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
I don't think it's the furries that furry haters don't like. I think it's the anime feel of the genre.

I anime-fy every session without using a anthromorph! C:


doctor_wu wrote:
The interesting thing is I haven't seen the furry haters complain about treants or toad from mario so are non animal forms okay? How do treants reproduce anyway?

Take a seat son. It's time I told you about the birds and the bees...


13 people marked this as a favorite.

"Pollination and You: The Complete Idiot's Guide to Branching Out"


The Elder Scrolls has kajit, and Pathfinder has catfolk. Now all we need is a pathfinder equivalent to skooma and the catfolk can build their own cartel! Only that is a terrible idea because then they will attract the ire of hundreds of adventurers who will ransack their holdings for loot.

Shadow Lodge

Jabborwacky wrote:
Now all we need is a pathfinder equivalent to skooma

Rival Guide!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alex Draconis wrote:

I love when some gamers jump all over furries. *rubs temples and sighs*

If that's not the pot calling the kettle black...

What's your encore? Going after the Otaku? LoL

You realize that nerds looking down on other nerds is perfectly acceptable so long as it follows the geek hierarchy, yes?


Shadowborn wrote:
Alex Draconis wrote:

I love when some gamers jump all over furries. *rubs temples and sighs*

If that's not the pot calling the kettle black...

What's your encore? Going after the Otaku? LoL

You realize that nerds looking down on other nerds is perfectly acceptable so long as it follows the geek hierarchy, yes?

It's ourageous! They put the lower form of life, fanfic writers at the same step as roleplaying gamers!


The put published Fantasy writers at the top. I know a number of them.

That's not where they should be.... 8|


That chart is missing a few steps at the very bottom.

After the very last box, there are two more.

-> Otherkin. -> Otakukin.

There is nothing lower than an Otakukin.


IIRC the chart is quite old, I think it might be from previous millenium, even.


The Minis Maniac wrote:
It's like that in a lot of subcultures I had a goth friend who would say things along similar lines. I ended up believing your not a real goth unless you have sacked Rome.

From what I've seen from online and tabletop gaming, this is pretty much the truth. Every subculture has those that are at the far extremes, where every single character has to be whatever their special need is, be it furry, a particular sexuality, a particular monster, drug, what-have-you.

There isn't anything inherently wrong with it, but it can become tedious after a while for others in the group. And when that is writ large in game books, it can make folks think "Those People" are forcing their views on their hobby.

With anything, people can like whatever they want and game however they choose. Everyone just has to remember not to cram their particular world view down the throat of the other players to the point of obnoxiousness .. which tends to happen all too often in our hobby (hence all the horror stories we hear about The Gamer/Furry/Otaku/etc Stereotype).


For those that don't know, Otherkin and Otakukin are religions.

Otherkin believe they have the soul of whatever fantasy creature or animal they think is cool at the time.

Otakukin believe they have the soul of or are the real life reincarnation of an anime character.

Many of them believe this with the same deep-seated fervour that you find in real religions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Umbral Reaver wrote:

For those that don't know, Otherkin and Otakukin are religions.

Otherkin believe they have the soul of whatever fantasy creature or animal they think is cool at the time.

Otakukin believe they have the soul of or are the real life reincarnation of an anime character.

Many of them believe this with the same deep-seated fervour that you find in real religions.

So Otherkin are basically not much different than those with pagan beliefs, and Otakukin are no weirder than Scientologists? Got it.

Still, I don't think they should be on the list. That's not being a geek; that's just being stupid.


Drejk wrote:


It's ourageous! They put the lower form of life, fanfic writers at the same step as roleplaying gamers!

I know! Why are we getting lumped in with you geeks?


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Drejk wrote:


It's ourageous! They put the lower form of life, fanfic writers at the same step as roleplaying gamers!
Take that, geeks! >:D

We need to keep our standards, don't we?

Amateur fantasy/SF writers and artists are on the same ladder of geekdom hierarchy as roleplaying gamers, not higher, usually (not to mention that they are often both).

EDIT: Apparently caught Kobold in the middle of editing own post.


Necromancer wrote:
Anthropomorphic animals have existed in folklore and mythology long before the 'furry' enthusiasts went mainstream. Would it be nice to see some original humanoid races from Paizo's staff? Yeah, but anthropomorphic animals can serve that function as well. None of these annoy me.

I agree. Why do you hate furries? Lots of fiction writers like C.J. Cherryh and Alan Dean Foster had them too. Pathfinder presented just a few of the ones out there. Every fantasy game engine needs them.

Quote:


What does annoy me is the persistence presence of halflings, gnomes, dwarves, elves, orcs, and/or goblins in every f%$%ing fantasy setting. I despise running into Tolkien fan-service everywhere I look.

Please see your own comments about anthropomorphic animals: Tolkien did not invent halflings, gnomes, dwarves, elves, orcs, and goblins. Do you think for a second that if the estate of Tolkien could prove they were his IP that they wouldn't sue just about every fantasy game and novel made in the last half century?

Tolkien based his races on Norse mythology and plot elements after Wagner's Ring of the Nibelung.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Borehd, you might want to look at Necromancer's clarification--it's not the existence of the races, but that they're all put in the same setting in a Tolkien-esque manner. And he's somewhat right--D&D's list of races will always be heavily influenced by Tolkien.


Regardless of how some folks self-identify as a furry, I think a lot of folks (myself included) see a HUUUUGE difference between a person who is entertained by anthropomorphic animals and those who are furries.

There seems to be a certain...fervor...associated with the latter that gets to be a bit much. Going to extremes and all.

There's a few folks in this very thread who have defined what being a furry means to them, and by my own personal definition, they aren't a furry. They're a fan of anthropomorphic animals.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just like people can't tell me I'm not peaceful enough to be a brony, I'm not sure we can really just tell folk they ain't furries. Don't they have the right to define their term?
It's just something to consider.

Grand Lodge

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Just like people can't tell me I'm not peaceful enough to be a brony, I'm not sure we can really just tell folk they ain't furries. Don't they have the right to define their term?

It's just something to consider.

Granted, we are talking about furries, but we do have a common language here, and words within that language have specified definitions (it's how we find common ground in order to properly communicate our thoughts to one another). If we just let everybody define words the way they think they should be defined, communication breaks down...


People can do whatever they want.

If person A wants to call themselves a furry, by their own defintion, cool.

If person B wants to consider the self-declared furry not a furry, by their own definition, cool.

If person A has a right to define their term, why doesn't person B?

Ultimately, though, none of this really matters.


Certainly, everybody has a right to use words as desired, but as Digital pointed out, things get confused if we don't have a common definition. It's my opinion that furries have more of a right to define themselves than non-furries. However, it's a matter of opinion. I'm just feeling sympathy for a fellow oppressed fandom. ;P

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Brian E. Harris wrote:
Ultimately, though, none of this really matters.

I find myself taking that view with quite a lot of things.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
It's my opinion that furries have more of a right to define themselves than non-furries.

We differ in opinion. :)

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I'm just feeling sympathy for a fellow oppressed fandom. ;P

I have zero sympathy for folks suffering from false-persecution syndrome.

I don't see furries (as I define the more fervent members of the general group being discussed) being oppressed because of the subject matter they like. I see people getting fed up with them for being annoying as hell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brian E. Harris wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
It's my opinion that furries have more of a right to define themselves than non-furries.

We differ in opinion. :)

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I'm just feeling sympathy for a fellow oppressed fandom. ;P

I have zero sympathy for folks suffering from false-persecution syndrome.

I don't see furries (as I define the more fervent members of the general group being discussed) being oppressed because of the subject matter they like. I see people getting fed up with them for being annoying as hell.

I hear a lot about how furries are bad and annoying... Except I never see them being annoying - maybe because I don't see them at all but that means that they are not annoying enough to be actually visible.


Brian E. Harris wrote:

People can do whatever they want.

If person A wants to call themselves a furry, by their own defintion, cool.

If person B wants to consider the self-declared furry not a furry, by their own definition, cool.

If person A has a right to define their term, why doesn't person B?

Ultimately, though, none of this really matters.

What you're doing here is bad and wrong. You should feel ashamed. When you decide for yourself what the definition of a label is and someone else then tells you they belong to that group, you then decide they must fit the definition you have made up yourself. You might end up thinking unwarranted things about that person because of your unyielding definition.


Umbral Reaver wrote:
Brian E. Harris wrote:

People can do whatever they want.

If person A wants to call themselves a furry, by their own defintion, cool.

If person B wants to consider the self-declared furry not a furry, by their own definition, cool.

If person A has a right to define their term, why doesn't person B?

Ultimately, though, none of this really matters.

What you're doing here is bad and wrong. You should feel ashamed. When you decide for yourself what the definition of a label is and someone else then tells you they belong to that group, you then decide they must fit the definition you have made up yourself. You might end up thinking unwarranted things about that person because of your unyielding definition.

Of course the same thing happens if I accept the strict definition I learned from a hardcore furry and then meet someone who calls himself a furry but only means he enjoys stories with anthropomorphic animals.

The problem is that there isn't a widely accepted definition. People, even people who consider themselves furries, might mean entirely different things by it.

It's probably better, unless there's some reason to think it's going to come up, to assume anyone claiming to be a furry isn't really into the whole yiffing thing. If you plan on having sex, you might want to ask.

It comes up in these RPG discussion because some people tend to assume that "furries", defined as anyone interested in playing anthropomorphic animal races, are also "furries" in the sexual fetish sense.
Which is nonsense.


Speaking as a mild furry: if you don't self-identify as furry, you really have <0 business trying to "define" the term furry for those of us who do.

I mean, unless you're just looking for a pejorative phrase to sling around; then, by all means.

[/sarcasm]

Grand Lodge

Alitan wrote:
if you don't self-identify as furry, you really have <0 business trying to "define" the term furry for those of us who do.

But any word or term needs a definitive definition, even if that definition has a wide range of variables. Otherwise the term has no real meaning at all and can thusly be defined however the user of the term wishes...


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm a Satanist. No, not those devil-worshipping, baby-sacrificing ones. No, not the LaVey self-serving, hedonistic kind either. I'm the happy, hug-giving, lollypop-eating kind of Satanist. Yay, Satan!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shadowborn wrote:
I'm a Satanist. No, not those devil-worshipping, baby-sacrificing ones. No, not the LaVey self-serving, hedonistic kind either. I'm the happy, hug-giving, lollypop-eating kind of Satanist. Yay, Satan!

I heard that you can be a lawful good paladin now.

The Exchange

Shadowborn wrote:
I'm a Satanist. No, not those devil-worshipping, baby-sacrificing ones. No, not the LaVey self-serving, hedonistic kind either. I'm the happy, hug-giving, lollypop-eating kind of Satanist. Yay, Satan!

Whats your address... no real reason. Just asking.

~adjusts specially made blessed silver bullets~


Something else to consider is the catgirl rating system -- I mean a lot of times what's put out there as 'furry' is hardly more than a picture of a rather striking (beautiful) female that happens to literally have a skin of some flavor on top, possibly with animal ears and a tail.

I mean to call someone a furry over that would be like calling someone a furry cause they like pictures of elf chicks when elf chicks have big ears like some animals.

Spoiler:
This applies to a lot of the art equally, I just specified the females simply because I tend to look at them a bit longer because like I said, you recolor the picture and remove possibly the ears and tail and you have a female human that's rather striking


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not really adding a new sentiment, but I am not a furry by any definition, but I still enjoy well done anthropomorphic animal races in fiction. In my own setting, I have various birdfolk, mongoose folk, etc, because I enjoy crafting a sapient race that evolved from some other animal group, and wondering how that different evolutionary heritage would manifest in culture and psychology.

And as others have also stated, I find generic Tolkien stand-ins to be a bit annoying. Yeah, he pulled them from European mythology for the most part, but he modified them quite a bit, and everyone has copied the modifications, not the original mythological entities.

Also, if Vanaras and Kitsune come from Asian folkore, is the OP trying to say all Asians are furries? What makes Asian folklore creatures better than European folklore creatures (which also have their fair share of anthropomorphic races).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Umbral Reaver wrote:
What you're doing here is bad and wrong. You should feel ashamed.

Seriously?

Gimme a break.

Stop attempting to oppress me. It's bad and wrong, and you should feel ashamed.

Umbral Reaver wrote:
When you decide for yourself what the definition of a label is and someone else then tells you they belong to that group, you then decide they must fit the definition you have made up yourself. You might end up thinking unwarranted things about that person because of your unyielding definition.

That's the great thing about free thought. I'm free to do all of this, and you're free to pass judgement on folks and impotently attempt to shame them and make them feel bad because they don't think the same thing you do.

Tolerance, acceptance and all that jazz, right? Or does that only apply when you say it does? Because that's how you're coming off.

Go ahead and label yourself whatever you want. That's fine, and nobody's going to stop you. If I don't agree, I'm not going to use said label. Because, again, none of this really matters. Do your own thing, and damn everyone who doesn't agree.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:
Shadowborn wrote:
I'm a Satanist. No, not those devil-worshipping, baby-sacrificing ones. No, not the LaVey self-serving, hedonistic kind either. I'm the happy, hug-giving, lollypop-eating kind of Satanist. Yay, Satan!
I heard that you can be a lawful good paladin now.

Actually, if you replace the name and the baggage that comes with them, one could easily see Satan as the hero of the Bible. (A former slave fighting insurmountable odds to overthrow a horrible tyrant.) And lots of Gnostics saw the creator god as evil and the serpent in the Garden of Eden/Lucifer as good; some went as far as to make him and Jesus the same person.

Point being, there actually can be very good Satanists out there that give hugs and eat lollipops.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
EntrerisShadow wrote:
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:
Shadowborn wrote:
I'm a Satanist. No, not those devil-worshipping, baby-sacrificing ones. No, not the LaVey self-serving, hedonistic kind either. I'm the happy, hug-giving, lollypop-eating kind of Satanist. Yay, Satan!
I heard that you can be a lawful good paladin now.

Actually, if you replace the name and the baggage that comes with them, one could easily see Satan as the hero of the Bible. (A former slave fighting insurmountable odds to overthrow a horrible tyrant.) And lots of Gnostics saw the creator god as evil and the serpent in the Garden of Eden/Lucifer as good; some went as far as to make him and Jesus the same person.

Steven Brust in To Reign in Hell wrote:
From all my readings on the revolt of the angels, two things are clear: God is omnipotent and Satan is not a fool. There seems to be a contradiction here...

One of my favorite takes on the subject.


Brian E. Harris wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
It's my opinion that furries have more of a right to define themselves than non-furries.
We differ in opinion. :)

What?! UNACCEPTABLE!

Flagged. >:O


Necromancer wrote:

Anthropomorphic animals have existed in folklore and mythology long before the 'furry' enthusiasts went mainstream. Would it be nice to see some original humanoid races from Paizo's staff? Yeah, but anthropomorphic animals can serve that function as well. None of these annoy me.

What does annoy me is the persistence presence of halflings, gnomes, dwarves, elves, orcs, and/or goblins in every f#@&ing fantasy setting. I despise running into Tolkien fan-service everywhere I look.

Yep! Which is why I am having a ball running a non-Tolkien setting. An Otyugh democracy is more interesting than orcs most days, zebrataur nomad clans more interesting than halfling dope-growers, varieties of lizard-folk and their technocracy more interesting than the static dwarf civs and goatfolk subterranean mercenaries more intriguing than proud elves in a forest nation.

We can always do better, or make games "new". This also connects to the Golarion material on the new Asian setting, where they just had to port Tolkien fantasy races over. Something I greatly disagreed with.

On furries, I don't like them much, looked into the subculture a bit and talked to people about their encounters with it. Not my cup of tea. Having said that I do have lycanthropes, goat-folk and rat-people in my new world. If players want to eroticise them... err...

Scarab Sages

These links seem relevant!


thejeff wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:
Shadowborn wrote:
I'm a Satanist. No, not those devil-worshipping, baby-sacrificing ones. No, not the LaVey self-serving, hedonistic kind either. I'm the happy, hug-giving, lollypop-eating kind of Satanist. Yay, Satan!
I heard that you can be a lawful good paladin now.

Actually, if you replace the name and the baggage that comes with them, one could easily see Satan as the hero of the Bible. (A former slave fighting insurmountable odds to overthrow a horrible tyrant.) And lots of Gnostics saw the creator god as evil and the serpent in the Garden of Eden/Lucifer as good; some went as far as to make him and Jesus the same person.

Steven Brust in To Reign in Hell wrote:
From all my readings on the revolt of the angels, two things are clear: God is omnipotent and Satan is not a fool. There seems to be a contradiction here...
One of my favorite takes on the subject.

Hunter the Reckoning/Demon The Fallen and the last OWOD "apocalypse" book gets into this perspective, very, very deeply.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Furry-hater here, in answer to the question, "Why are gnolls OK, but my catgirl isn't?"

Snide answer: The point of gnolls isn't to be cuddly and/or sexy.
Better answer: Using furries can be very campaign-specific.

There's a place for your cat-girl PC. If your group has a bunch of emo college people, then I'd assume dhampirs and anthros are stock requirements. If your whole group thinks it's awesome to be cute, and grooves on rainbows and ponies and snuggle-piles, and likes to picture the PCs as cartoons, then your group should most certainly include anthros!

But if the entire group is playing hard-bitten human adventurers seeking to overthrow oppressive evil, and you pop in with a super-sexy catgirl who wants to lick the other characters while they're readying their weapons and spells, it can easily jar the others out of their immersion. In this case, including your furry is exactly like including Jar-Jar Binks in Star Wars movies.

51 to 100 of 209 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / A source of frustration: Furries and RPG's All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.