Feral Heart

Wow. I've been roleplaying for over a decade, and I've never once had this problem. Is this a new trend, or just something seen among younger, more inexperienced roleplayers? This is the first time I've ever heard of this being an issue--in fact, being a "cross-gendered rper" isn't even a term in my book. It just seems like a given, especially if you're like me and have more characters than you can sanely keep count of

My main fursonas tend to be female (Nari, Vega), but some of my male characters are perhaps the most fun to play (Byron, Kurunzi, Kazuya-chan, and Decimus who is a character that a friend gave me). I don't think it's very hard to grasp a realistic character of either gender in writing. How would an author of a book write books anyway, if he or she didn't explore characters of the opposite gender? Surely C.S. Lewis, J.K. Rowling, Erin Hunter, and more must be complete and total whack jobs.

You know, this actually brings up a funny thing that my boss at work said once. She noticed that I kept reading the Warriors books during lunch break, and we got into a discussion of Erin Hunter and I mentioned that they also wrote Seekers, which is about bears. My boss actually said "she must be really weird if all she writes about is animals all the time." I almost fell out of my chair. The closed-mindedness of some people is really quite astounding. (So Kyugima, believe it or not there actually are people who are creeped out by cross-species roleplayers! xP lol. Great parody thread, btw )

That being said, I can understand how it might make inexperienced roleplayers feel squeamish, especially if they haven't properly been taught about what roleplay really is. I'm certain that many believe a character to be an avatar or representation of oneself, when really this isn't always the case (and, more often than not, just simply isn't the case). I don't feel that they're weirdos by any means, just a little misled and misinformed about the nature of roleplay and what it means to play a character.

Oh boy, been a while since I stalked these forums, and even longer since I've felt like posting.

I understand where some of you are coming from. Some character designs can look absolutely horrid and gaudy with those bright neon colors, those purple manes or those bright yellow pelts. I get it, I really do. When character designs are poorly done, they look bad. However, using unrealistic colors (such as "grey" hyenas versus "brown" ones, or having a pink pony versus a realistically colored one, etc.) doesn't necessarily equal bad design.

When you ask the question, "does this character look realistic?" you must also ask, "was this character meant to be realistic?" Not everyone wants to play characters with realistic designs. If it's not your cup of tea to see an orange tiger with green stripes, then kindly turn the other way and ignore it. Now, it's one thing when a person claims to be playing a realistic character when it isn't realistically designed--but even then, one can play a character with an unrealistic design and still roleplay realistically if said design has an explanation (the animal was in an experiment, it's a new species, it's a different world where these colors are normal, some five year old got a hold of the permanent spray paint and poor Lassie now has a bright green pelt, etc!). Bottom line: people can, and will, be as creative as they want. While it's fine and noble to coach newbies on the dos and don'ts of character design, also keep in mind that not everyone has to adhere strictly to realistic design rules. If that were the case, the art of character design would get pretty dull pretty fast.

And... *Sigh* The very reason I even bothered to come on and make a post:

Female lions with manes. Where do I begin?

First of all, you can't call this unrealistic when it very plainly is: http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/10/09/weird-wild-rare-maned-lionesses-explained/

Second of all, ever heard of chimerism? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSMQcy5ReQQ Enjoy learning a few things.

After taking a look at the above article and video, take another look at your lists of "unrealistic" characters and think a bit. That lioness with a mane might not look so dumb after all--she could be an asset to her pride. The same goes for any character with an uncommon mix of masculine and feminine traits--not only is this realistically possible, but it could potentially make roleplay all the more interesting. And even if it's not about the roleplaying, but about character design in general, the fact of the matter is that not every character made has to be a 100% cookie cutter representation of what is "normal," "realistic," or "socially acceptable." It isn't even like that in real life, so how can anyone call it "realistic" in character design? That's perfectionism, which is the opposite of realism.

I'm sorry, I get sick of strictly enforced male/female gender binaries. It's not only UNREALISTIC to expect males and females to be perfect cookie cutter representations of what we expect to be "male" or "female," its short-sighted and restrictive. This is a particular pet peeve of mine. "Gender" isn't even physical, it's a social construct. Any college Intro to Anthropology class will teach this (personally, I've encountered several college classes across anthropology and English/literary studies that emphasize teaching this). Our idea of "male" and "female" is based on what we believe to be socially correct--as for physiological differences, males and females might have a few different parts and functions, but overall there isn't much different about us even physically. And, as the video above explained, we may be even more varied physiologically than we even know.

Want characters to be more realistic? Then stop trying to set standards of perfection, because that just isn't how it works. As for unrealistic colors and markings, understand that not everyone wants to design 100% realistic characters. Enough said.

We have full socks, but you guys never wanted more variation when we were asking what markings you wanted in the game. That was well over two or three months ago, I see little point in complaining now.

Nala, I don't mean to sound rude, but not everyone checks the DA posts religiously. I sure don't. I never knew about these polls. Why make such a fuss over someone suggesting some additional sock markings? Are new markings not going to be made any more? I'd say any and all suggestions should be fine, even if they weren't suggested on this poll months ago. Isn't that what a suggestions/opinions forum is for?

I don't see why anyone's suggestions should be shot down just because the suggestion wasn't mentioned on this poll of yours. Like I said, not everyone goes to DA all the time, and also think about new members who've shown up ages after this poll was closed, and never had a chance to speak their minds. The entire markings content of the game shouldn't have to have been dependent on one lone poll.

I quickly browsed through the topic names to see if this has been suggested, although I didn't check generic thread titles such as "Lots of ideas" or just "Ideas," so if this has been suggested before, I apologize.

Has anyone who has fiddled around with the Character Edit screen noticed the proportion constrictions that are set on the Width, Height, and Length attributes? To elaborate; when you move one slider, say the "Width" slider, the other two sliders automatically move to stick to a certain pre-set proportion system. These constraints are extremely irritating. It makes it more difficult to create more diverse species/breeds with these constrictions.

For example, if I have a character of a certain obscure canine breed, for example the Tosa Inu (which I have to use the feline model for, ironically) and set its length to the perfect length for its' breed, I might find that the width is too skinny. if I move the width slider it ruins my perfect length. Same with the height attribute. I can not get the perfect width, length, and height combination no matter how hard I try or how long I fiddle with the sliders.

I say these proportion constraints should be removed, for the sake of more diverse species/breed creation.

Also, the canines could use an extra body mesh to choose from, or extra settings so that more diverse canine breeds can be made. It's entirely too wolfish/skinny/lean to create breeds such as Tosas, Mastiffs, Pugs, and the more stockier/less lean canine breeds. I'm also in favor of fuller manes for canines, because there are some breeds that would benefit from the look of a thick mane, such as Fu dogs. Thicker/wider/taller/bigger muzzle, neck, and head settings would be beneficial too. Having separate settings for wider/thinner heads, necks, and muzzles would greatly improve customization and breed diversity.

I also am in favor of shorter/skinnier tails for both canines and felines, and curlier tails for such canine breeds as the Akita or Shiba Inu.

Hope this doesn't sound bossy or rude xD I tend to be rather blunt, lol. I love the work that has gone into FH so far, don't get me wrong. It's just that it could use a few improvements to better accommodate more diverse breeds. Also, a setting should be implemented to adjust the arch of a character's back; this would be helpful for hyenas and certain feline species.

(Credit to the arched back setting idea goes to Slycan; I can't remember which forum I read it on but Sly made a great comparison of back/neck arching differences between canines, felines, and hyaenidae).

Great list! This is very useful ^_^ I'm giving some thought to creating a bear character now.

I'd like to point out though that hyenas aren't technically canines. They're more closely related to felines than canines, but even that is not entirely correct. Although they share both feline and canine characteristics, they're more closely related to the mongoose family than either felines or canines. The correct classification for hyenas is "Hyaenidae."

Yahoo! Answers
Wikipedia Article

Not trying to sound like a know-it-all, mind you ^^; Just wanted to point that out.