do your fantasy races have dimorphic attributes? or is that a matter of fluff, rather than crunch?
*Uses my entire turn to uncork and drink the entire decanter of my prepared 'Don't Give a Fuck(™)' potion*Yeah I just like tits so uhhh females have tits. End of story.
Let's just get this out of the way.
>>98475262It's called fap material actually they're made to look like anime girls so I can fap to them and that's good
>>98475262but which sex of elephant seal is more attractive?
>>98474651>have dimorphic attributesWhy yes, not even focusing on the famous stoat/ermine I do think it's cool when fantasy creatures are different colours in different seasons...
>>98476768...or due to variation in embryonic development conditions...
>>98476777...or in response to pressure from predation. These are just three, but there are so many reasons to have dimorphic attributes whether plasticity across an environmental gradient or strongly differentiated species across a hard boundary who may be well on their way to speciation or some other reason besides.
>>98476768>>98476777>>98476781do predators attack one more than the other?
>>98475262I think the idea is that since different races are more magical , their sexual diphormism is more so just based on ideas of devine masculity and femininity.sometimes lame and gay devine femininity , globohomo devine femininity.
>>98474651>thread about sexual dimorphism >vidrel shows pokemon that aren't sexually dimorphic I know it's not important, but this irritates my autism.
>>98477170It's not really that deep. There's usually just no thought put into at all.
>>98474651Yes, women have big massive tits, and a cute face. We're not fucking furfags who want the girls looking like guys
>>98475247sounds like you give a fuck about tits, man
>>98477211>the male is toxic>the female is notwhat did they mean by this?
>>98477389Both vileplume and belossom are 50/50 male/female, they do not evolve based on gender, and they are not sexually dimorphic.
>>98477522nah, look at them. Bellossom has a dress and cutesy eyes, plus her name is like 'Bella'. she's a girl and Vileplume (with his bald patch) is a boy.
>>98477611Also dogs are boys and cats are girls.
>>98475262Counterpoint: no human being cares about the opinions of subhuman furfags.
>>98474651My worldbuilding stuff is more focused on science fiction than fantasy, but I have different species with dimorphism ranging from negligible to considerably more than humans. If I did an RPG for the setting (It's a backdrop for a wargame I'm developing, not an RPG), the species with large amount of dimorphism would have separate stats for males and females.
>>98475262The point about the skull is kind of disingenuous, the soft tissue differences in elephant seals are huge. You would never guess looking at a live one that their skulls are as similar as they are.This is also about races, sapient ones, so there are other pressures outside of intra-sex competition. Habitat, culture, and since it's a magical world, magic, and capricious gods and spirits.
>>98478370If you told me these two have the same skull shape, I'd believe you. If you told me the hyper-dimorphic rats have the same skull shape, I'd laugh at the notion.
>>98478370The hyper dimorphic animal races annoy some people because they don't fit the dimorphism of the animals that they are ostensibly based on. Elephant seals have high sexual dimorphism, so it makes logical sense that a fantasy race based on elephant seals should have high dimorphism as well. Wolves, on the other hand. have very little sexual dimorphism, so making the males into wolf men and the females into ladies with funny ears doesn't make much logical sense, and is obviously just a way to get more sexy ladies into your fantasy world. Which, to be clear, I have no problem with, but coming up with watsonian reasons for why they are sexually dimorphic is transparently disingenuous to everyone. Just say you want sexy ladies!
>>98478553>and is obviously just a way to get more sexy ladies into your fantasy world. Which, to be clear, I have no problem with, but coming up with watsonian reasons for why they are sexually dimorphic is transparently disingenuous to everyone. Just say you want sexy ladies!desu these aren't actually mutually exclusive since my own games setting both has hot chicks primarily added because I have a thing for monster girls but I also have justifications for why they are there
>>98478649Be honest with yourself. They're not justifications; they're excuses.
>>98478908what's the difference
>>98474651No sexual dimorphism in my setting, due to in game lore reasons.
>>98479246Justifications are used when the presenter thinks they're in the right and did nothing wrong. Excuses acknowledge what was done was wrong but serves to lift blame from the perpetrator.
>>98479452oh so it was probably a justification because how could cute monstergirls be considered wrong
>>98477242Obviously it means not giving a fuck about whether it's fluff or crunch of having tits or whether it is acceptable to say that you like tits. It means I don't give a fuck if you appreciate my opinion, my opinion is a fact to me. (End of story).
>>98479837i think you drank the wrong potion, anon.
>>98479872I don't give a fuck what you think, you're wrong.
>>98477658But the furfag was the one who posited it, another different one made a drawing, and a non-furfag did the skull and other comparison. You can't just sweep anything you dislike as muh furfags.
>>98479515They're basically slop. Like how most writers and corpos will say you must make them look human to sell.
Foids all have -4 Str
>>98480054>something must be compelling to compel peoplewow you don't say
>>98480159>compellinglol lmao. It's just lowest common denominator npc shit and always has been. Basically a woman's mindset but lionized in this case because it agrees with your mindset.
>>98480391your argument is pathetic whining about being outnumbered by people who think your taste is shit, and your image has nothing to do with your argument
>>98480447It must be so convenient to be able to fall back with muh numbers when it suits you when in other instances I can instantly imagine the comparison to maggots/flies and normalfags having shit taste, yet here you are arguing it's good because it is the normalfag opinion you personally agree with.
>>98474651Yes, when it's fittingorcs? No sexual dimorphism beyonds females having breasts (and only when pregnant) and not going bald before they hit 40other stuff? here and there. For instance, sphinxes and manticores are respectively the female and male of the same speciesDorf women can grow beards, but it starts at middle age. By the time they're actual elders, dwarven wives sport full grown beards (including moustaches)Not the most interesting part of world building for me, but I pay it some thought here and there
>>98480462no, you're arguing it's bad because it's supposedly the normie opinion, i'm just aying that's retarededbut you can't really find any better argument than that, can you? you're trying to argue something you don't like based on your taste is objectively bad, a literally impossible task even when you're not going against common perceptions
>>98479246Excuses come from a place of insecurity.
>>98480589>no, you're arguing it's bad because it's supposedly the normie opinion, i'm just aying that's retarededThen what exactly is your point if not to say it has primacy because it's the normalfag appealing stance? >>98480159Are you going to then say this series of obnoxious, dismissive responses aren't saying the same thing?
>>98480672>what's the point of making fun of meit's funalso that post demonstrated that you're wrong by the tautology of the thing that is more compelling being more compelling, but maybe that flew over your headyour cope doesn't matter, you're trying to argue that your view is popular by saying it opposes the popular opinion, you are completely fucking retarded if you actually think that can work
>>98480695>you're trying to argue that your view is popularWhere? Where is this at so I can laugh at your circular fanfiction you've already constructed of me?
>>98480752you're saying it's the normie view, that they're npcs, that they're the lowest common denominator, and so on, and the most characteristic property of all of those is that there's a lot of them, they are the demographic slop sellers sell to for a reason
>>98480810What seems to be the confusion, mr. all lowercase?
>>98480829you tell me
>>98479246Justifications are good-faith explanations. In this case, you started with the conclusion and worked backwards. Thus, the in-universe reasons aren't honest; the real reason is that you wanted cute monstergirls.
>>98474651Females are more inclined towards at least one kind of magic or supernatural power the game nay have, and do better with whatever social mechanics or combined tactic skills might be present.Males have more direct power and better base attributes.Don't cry about my post, I just answered OP's retarded question.
>>98475262The thing that gets me is the dishonesty. People will say, it's realistic because of sexual dimorphism, but them it's applying strictly human-like sexual dimorphism to non-humans who in cases are not even mammals or even have the same evolutionary pressures or traits as humans yet somehow arrived at being like humans in that specific way alone. We get people on the other end saying how it makes no sense for non-humans to be just like humans and not have their own racial standards.
>>98481180i don't see why that would make them bad faith or dishonest, it's not like he was hiding the reasons, and it's not like this isn't the direction about half of other worldbuilding is doneif he wanted a castle to exist first and later came up with the in-universe reason for it, i don't think you'd be inventing the same complaints, so i in fact have a feeling your own reasoning is in bad faith due to hypocrisy
>>98481852It's certainly a bit self-serving and meta when you think about it too hard. It's basically a big sign slapped onto your races that blatantly say they were designed specifically to indulge the creator and not something that was designed while thinking about how they would actually have developed in the setting according to their own circumstances.
>>98481852sorry but they're clearly at least 90% human so they're 90% mammal too
>>98475262To add to the elephant seal bit, most of the skull difference comes from the simple fact that animal is going to have different proportions and structure the bigger it is. If the females could magically grow as big as the males their skulls would be much closer in shape.
>>98475262I know nonwhite nazi zoomers from Twitter literally cannot be considered human so the posts they screenshot and spam here shouldn't be graced with a response that isn't an invititation to finally make their parents proud for once and hang themselves in their rooms, but comparing actual animal head to anime girl with ears dimorphism to what happens in humans is so comically disingenous that you can instantly see through the facade and recognise it for what it is: an excuse to have some shitty kemono to jack off to because you think that somehow constitutes as fighting against globohomo or whatever instead of just being some lonely kissless virgin faggot
>>98474651How much seethe did Misty cause for casually dropping a truth nuke on trannies in a children's cartoon?
>>98477653What's funny about this being the prevailing mindset is female dogs are smarter and more affectionate, while it's male cats who are more affectionate and receptive to training
>>98475262What franchise does this?It is probably so anime or something.The top fantasy franchises have fairly normal sexual dimorphism (eg D&D, WoW (the one closest to this are trolls), there aren't many furries in tolkien derived works)
>>98474651do you have nails? in your game?
>>98485296Back then this was just common knowledgeCancel culture types all grew up with gen 4 (the one that added zoophilia lore)
