Beastfolk: Difference between revisions

From 2d4chan
Jump to navigation Jump to search
1d4chan>Lolianon
(Be excellent, no harm meant)
1d4chan>QuietBrowser
(I still think this BLAM meme is fucking stupid and overused, but whatever. Removed the strike-throughs, though, as that just makes the article hard to read.)
Line 2: Line 2:


==Beastfolk vs. Furries==
==Beastfolk vs. Furries==
<s>When they hear the definition of "beastfolk" as "anthropomorphic animals", a lot of newcomers will ask just why beastfolk are accepted when the anti-[[furry]] meme is promoted with such vehemence.
When they hear the definition of "beastfolk" as "anthropomorphic animals", a lot of newcomers will ask just why beastfolk are accepted when the anti-[[furry]] meme is promoted with such vehemence.


Firstly, beastfolk being no better than furries is itself part of the anti-furry meme, and the argument erupts pretty much whenever there's a slow day.
Firstly, beastfolk being no better than furries is itself part of the anti-furry meme, and the argument erupts pretty much whenever there's a slow day.
Line 12: Line 12:
Having beastfolk in your setting, or playing a beastfolk character, isn't inherently bad. Even having some level of sexuality isn't bad - /tg/ can appreciate a [[musclegirl]] in a [[Fantasy Armor|chainmail bikini]] even if she does have scales or fur. It's when you ramp up the sex level to the point the others at the table are creeped out that you've crossed into the /tg/ definition of "furry", and you are an asshole.
Having beastfolk in your setting, or playing a beastfolk character, isn't inherently bad. Even having some level of sexuality isn't bad - /tg/ can appreciate a [[musclegirl]] in a [[Fantasy Armor|chainmail bikini]] even if she does have scales or fur. It's when you ramp up the sex level to the point the others at the table are creeped out that you've crossed into the /tg/ definition of "furry", and you are an asshole.


Mind you, there is a vocal minority on /tg/ who assert that the only "real" way to present beastfolk is as mindless ravening monsters who have no culture and exist only to be slain. Most ignore these people, and some consider them as bad as the furries.</s> {{BLAM}} {{*BLAM*| HERESY. SUFFER NOT THE FURRY'S LIES, LEST THEY LEAD THE FAITHFUL ASTRAY.}}
Mind you, there is a vocal minority on /tg/ who assert that the only "real" way to present beastfolk is as mindless ravening monsters who have no culture and exist only to be slain. Most ignore these people, and some consider them as bad as the furries. <s>{{BLAM}} {{*BLAM*| HERESY. SUFFER NOT THE FURRY'S LIES, LEST THEY LEAD THE FAITHFUL ASTRAY.}}</s> <span style='color:Red;font-size:115%'>*FWOOOSH* Who the fuck let the Imperials in here?</span>


==List of Beastfolk==
==List of Beastfolk==
Line 100: Line 100:
* Other, stranger traits depending on species - multiple nipples and/or breasts, gills, and so forth.
* Other, stranger traits depending on species - multiple nipples and/or breasts, gills, and so forth.


<s>The rarest format of all for beastgirl is the "very near anthro", where you have what is basically an anthro - but with a human's face under a thin layer of fur/scales. This is an extremely rare style, and usually associated with anime-emulating artists.</s> {{BLAM}} {{*BLAM*| HERESY. THAT IS CLEARLY DESCRIBING SOME FORM OF MUTANT, NOT ONE OF THE EMPRAH'S BLESSED ABHUMANS.}}
The rarest format of all for beastgirl is the "very near anthro", where you have what is basically an anthro - but with a human's face under a thin layer of fur/scales. This is an extremely rare style, and usually associated with anime-emulating artists. Contributing to its rareness is that this design-style is hugely [[skub]]by even outside of /tg/; if the face is visibly human, but there is no visible separation between the human parts and the monstrous parts, in contrast to the traditional "human girl wearing a costume" look of beastgirls, then is it still a monstergirl, or it is a female anthro? Internet wars have been fought over this question, and neither side will give any quarter. <s>{{BLAM}} {{*BLAM*| HERESY. THAT IS CLEARLY DESCRIBING SOME FORM OF MUTANT, NOT ONE OF THE EMPRAH'S BLESSED ABHUMANS.}}</s> <span style='color:Red;font-size:115%'>*KRAK-KOOM* Case in point. One gibbed Commissar clean-up, stat!</span> 


===Gallery===
===Gallery===

Revision as of 22:27, 11 January 2018

Beastfolk is a term in /tg/'s lexicon used to collectively refer to any race which can be defined as a humanoid animal, an unofficial kinsfolk to terms like demihuman and goblinoid.

Beastfolk vs. Furries

When they hear the definition of "beastfolk" as "anthropomorphic animals", a lot of newcomers will ask just why beastfolk are accepted when the anti-furry meme is promoted with such vehemence.

Firstly, beastfolk being no better than furries is itself part of the anti-furry meme, and the argument erupts pretty much whenever there's a slow day.

But, to take the topic seriously, /tg/'s own words on the subject are: "all furries are beastfolk, but not all beastfolk are furries".

What this means in real language is that, on /tg/, a furry is defined partially by its anthro aspects but predominantly by being a creepy little perv; what /tg/ defines as a "furry" is the kind of guy who engages in Magical Realmism and /d/Ming, but with anthro races instead of humanoids.

Having beastfolk in your setting, or playing a beastfolk character, isn't inherently bad. Even having some level of sexuality isn't bad - /tg/ can appreciate a musclegirl in a chainmail bikini even if she does have scales or fur. It's when you ramp up the sex level to the point the others at the table are creeped out that you've crossed into the /tg/ definition of "furry", and you are an asshole.

Mind you, there is a vocal minority on /tg/ who assert that the only "real" way to present beastfolk is as mindless ravening monsters who have no culture and exist only to be slain. Most ignore these people, and some consider them as bad as the furries. *BLAM* HERESY. SUFFER NOT THE FURRY'S LIES, LEST THEY LEAD THE FAITHFUL ASTRAY. *FWOOOSH* Who the fuck let the Imperials in here?

List of Beastfolk

There are a lot of beastfolk races in /tg/ media, probably because "take an animal and make it humanoid" is as easy a way to come up with a distinctly "alien" race as any. Weird fact is, most of them come from Dungeons & Dragons, or at least have spread from there to other /tg/ media.

Non D&D Beastfolk:

D&D Beastfolk:

Monstergirls

This article or section is about Monstergirls (or a monster that is frequently depicted as a Monstergirl), something that /tg/ widely considers to be the purest form of awesome. Expect PROMOTIONS! and /d/elight in equal measure, often with drawfaggotry or writefaggotry to match.

Beastfolk get the monstergirls treatment fairly readily. Indeed, they're often argued as some of the most basic-level monstergirls who actually look inhuman, in contrast to elves (humans with pointy ears), dwarves and halflings (shortstacks) or gnomes (shortstack elves). Catgirls and cowgirls are extremely well-recognized monstergirls for a reason, and other beastfolk readily get the same treatment.

At their most basic, monstergirlified beastfolk consist of a human girl with animalistic ears and a tail on an otherwise human frame (taking some liberties for beasts that don't have ears, like lizards). This is the most recognizable form of beastgirl, to the point that /a/ has its own word for it: Kemonomimi, meaning "Animal Ears".

However, these monstergirls cover a wide spectrum, with multiple different sorts of animalistic traits that can be added. Now, species plays its part, but some of the common traits include:

  • Limbs partially or wholly in fur/scales/chitin
  • Paws, claws or hooves in place of feet.
  • Paw-like hands.
  • Partial patches of fur/scales/chitin on the body, usually emulating exotic lingerie or costume pieces.
  • Clawed fingers/toes.
  • Missing digits.
  • Fangs or other oddly shaped teeth.
  • Other, stranger traits depending on species - multiple nipples and/or breasts, gills, and so forth.

The rarest format of all for beastgirl is the "very near anthro", where you have what is basically an anthro - but with a human's face under a thin layer of fur/scales. This is an extremely rare style, and usually associated with anime-emulating artists. Contributing to its rareness is that this design-style is hugely skubby even outside of /tg/; if the face is visibly human, but there is no visible separation between the human parts and the monstrous parts, in contrast to the traditional "human girl wearing a costume" look of beastgirls, then is it still a monstergirl, or it is a female anthro? Internet wars have been fought over this question, and neither side will give any quarter. *BLAM* HERESY. THAT IS CLEARLY DESCRIBING SOME FORM OF MUTANT, NOT ONE OF THE EMPRAH'S BLESSED ABHUMANS. *KRAK-KOOM* Case in point. One gibbed Commissar clean-up, stat!

Gallery

Furries

WARNING: THESE IMAGES ARE HIGHLY HERETICAL IN NATURE, AND POSTING THEM CAN EARN A GLOBAL *BLAM* FROM /tg/. POST AT YOUR OWN RISK.

Monstergirls
Retrieved from "http://23.235.193.55/mediawiki/index.php?title=Beastfolk&oldid=62477"