/fur/ - Furry

>>115792

>Really I wanted to drop what it meant since I just learned the word.

I know, I just wanted to give you some shit for it. People have google if they don't know what you're talking about, make 'em use it.

>>115786

Honestly, I feel like clothing would be largely the same- just without sleeves. Since obviously that'd pretty badly interfere with your wings assuming they're the same limb as your arms. As for pants, those might be either non-existent or baggier depending on how animalistic the leg anatomy is.

also avian/theropod feet just might be the only instance in which those dumb toeless shoe ideas would really take off

I apologize for late replies, friends.

>>115256

I love folktales. Eastern European folktales in particular have a certain extra sense of mystery or intrigue to them because of how often pre and post-Christian themes and elements are blended together, making it difficult to pin down exactly how they originated or what inspired it. It helps that they aren't as common, popular, or as copied as Germanic folktales, so finding them gives it that "forgotten knowledge" feeling. But hopefully they do become more well known, I always feel comfy vibes and love their aesthetics.

>>115308

Depends on what your suspension of disbelief is like then, I suppose. The more fantastical something is, the more explanation I need for why it is. And sometimes, those explanations or lore details can be more interesting than what story is taking place. I try to write in a certain amount of realism in the worlds I create combined with what I would personally like to see. Personally, I dislike the idea of intelligent animals eating other intelligent animals, and I feel certain animals might have disadvantages or can't develop as varied or broad of a culture if they're reduced to eating bugs or limited foods, hence I rationalize it would make sense for some feral animals to still exist. My problem seems to be that I spend so much time rationalizing how things would work or exist that I don't seem to have a lot of stories written, just histories, lore, cultures, etc. I love asking "Why?" or figuring things out, but sometimes I guess things can be more fun if the reader is left to figure out or rationalize something by themselves.

I've thought about a wide variety of things for this world, like religion, cultures, clothing, trading, construction, agriculture, language, magic, philosophies, habitat, geography, resources, genetic variations, and more. Whenever I create a new tribe or society, I try to use or focus on a new or unique theme for it. Like how I explored how symbiotic societies by having Giant Pandas and Red Pandas that live together filling gaps left in each others niches so that resources aren't wasted and roles become efficient. Or how some cultures might have unique clothing based on what they use it for, like a Salamander society that is heavily reliant on outside resources but can only live in warm climates. To trade for those resources, they might need to travel to colder climates, so they might create specialized clothing to help them survive in those regions before they can return to a warmer area. I feel not having all animals living together let's you create more diverse and varied cultures using more freedom in specifically gearing a society to explicitly suits their needs.

>>115327

Makes me wonder if extinct species should be incorporated into an intelligent animal society, or even extinct species from millions of years ago. Would the world have changed too much for them to even exist, let alone anthropomorphically? If Dodos were revived and had intelligent societies with other animals would they stand a chance or go extinct again? Would all intelligent animals even have the same amount of intelligence? Should the animals intelligence only scale compared to the intelligence of the animal they're based on? What would need to happen for an anthropomorphic world to be balanced and able for multiple different societies to exist in it? Would Gods or Humans need to exist as some sort of mediators to add balance or prevent animals from genociding each other?

Makes me wonder about trying to add dinosaurs to my own world I've been creating. Although I think it's more fun to imagine them as giant half-conscious beasts rather than full on anthropomorphic and intelligent. I imagine they'd be so big and powerful they wouldn't need to develop into societies and they'd only have basic language skills and seem similar to Cavemen.

(Similar to how Cavemen are seen as dumb primative humans, I think it'd be fun if dinosaurs were also similar to dumb primatives in an animal society.)

>>115409

It can be fun to try and rationalize how to close to our reality as something could possibly be, making it's existence feel more plausible and relatable, easing any pains about it never being able to actually exist. But people should always remember fantasy is largely about escapism after all, it shouldn't be taken too seriously, lest you become obsessed with a fantasy that can never exist to the point is causes you anguish.

>>115449

Intelligence would come about due to having most needs or resources met, so an animal with extra energy and time to waste can afford to be curious and start to question the world around them. I would think that's why most intelligent animals end up being omnivores or animals that have a wide variety of food options available to them, hence I think Zootopia's diet concepts are dumb.

Bipedalism I would think would be a result from the increased intelligence. The more curious an animal is, the more they will want to interact with the world around them. It could also be the other way around where bipedalism gives an advantage to an animal, making them more efficient and allows them to spend time and energy in different ways.

As for tits, having them at the chest would allow an animal to move around while holding their child to feed them. As to why non-mammals would have them, I wouldn't know. It could be something that looks similar but has a different function. Or even a way of deceiving or letting the guard down of other animals with similar traits.

Could be bias, but a humanoid shape just seems like the most efficient or balanced form for an intelligent creature.

>shadowy figure emerges from the dark behind bars

>feminine voice says "come closer"

>you hesitate because you don't recognize what it is at first

>you realize what you're seeing

>you come closer

>she grabs you and pins your back towards the bars

>you try to break free but she's noticeably stronger

>as she has you in a chokehold through the bars she starts lightly rubbing your face, then chest, then stomach, then groin area with her tail

>you relax slightly

>she notices and slowly slides her hand from your head to your groin while still holding you firmly with the other around your neck

>she starts feeling your package from the outside

>>115327

>>115909

If we're going to be hard-science, no. But then neither would there be anthros at all.

Speaking of your idea for what are essentially anthrofied ferals with intelligence (like Dinotopia), a feature that would be likely are sanitation salons/stations, with scale cleaning, claw trimming, scale mite/tick treatment and removal (with birds). Essentially the whole shazam to prevent any scaly-diseases. And of course, they'd employ humans for the nitty-gritty tight fits and delicate work that requires the dexterity and precision of human fingers (pic 1)

Also an interesting thing is that no reptilian species, sub-species, or breeds grow hair naturally. The closest we have is the hair-like filments that some pterosaurs and bird-ancestors have. So if a reptilian anthro likes hair. It's soft, warm, pretty, and you can do all kind of things with it. Some could go out of their way to acquire hair. Hair implants or wigs/toupees (maybe like pic 2). It's almost like those scale implants some people get IRL. Reptilians would probably have really mixed reactions about those. Some would think it's cute and flattering while others would think it's weird and unsettling. Much like how them with hair would get mixed reactions.

And obviously taking into account all the size differences and other things, public transport and larger, different vehicles would be likely, along side different building systems. Or they would have to adapt and get smaller.

Some other stuff as well https://pastebin.com/W6mjMV9k

>>117940

>Saurian warfare

>The scale of battle is epic and terrible

>Heavily armored saurians carrying ridiculously huge weaponry

>Humans scrambling with smaller saurians

>Titanic clashes between armies of thundering reptiles

>instead of developing tanks, we just stuck weapons and armor on saurians

>Marine-Saur submarine warfare

>mosasaurs and ichthyosaurs ram hard enough to dent metal armor, teeth tear limbs, smell, low-light eyesight and water pressure determine targets.

>Pterosaurs of various kinds do recon, air to air combat and drop bombs from side-saddle pouches (pic 3). Competing with planes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcmBALxDkRY

>>117941

>>instead of developing tanks, we just stuck weapons and armor on saurians

Why not both? Horses were still used in warfare as late as World War II despite most countries involved having gone completely industrial by that time. Not to mention all the excess material you put on an animal will wear down on it's stamina over time. I imagine vehicles like tanks could still be made, but they would operate more akin to roaming guard towers that don't wander around or need to be fed, making them better suited for defensive positions. This could even create interesting stories or conflicts about vehicle operators who don't completely trust the Saurians or deem them too unpredictable or risk sensitive. There's not a lot of parallels to our world that exist because horses weren't massive beasts that didn't have sharp nails and teeth, so having beasts used for warfare that can also be massive risks if utilized improperly is already an interesting concept. I'm also interested in the implications of Saurians in a non-warfare setting. How else would they be utilized? How would they live among or apart from humans or other intelligent species?

>>117940

>If we're going to be hard-science, no. But then neither would there be anthros at all.

It's been a long time since anyone has posted in this thead that I'm somewhat confused as to which question you're answering. It's less of using hard science and more of trying to logically explain a world or what logic would need to take place in order to explain it. But I guess at that point it would boil back into hard science. Or you could just say "physics are different in this world" or "no one really understands the universe anyway." It's just fun to imagine hypotheticals while also trying to support them with whatever rules or laws you can.

>sanitation salons/stations

This is a fairly interesting concept I'd never thought of before. Like what sort of animals would be best at cleaning or performing what? Would they have a preference for a particular animal to help with their cleaning? Would some of them be kept as pets, roommates, etc? Would wealthier individuals be cleaner or would poorer individuals live among their cleaners for conveinence? Would wealthier individuals create more specialized forms of cleaning services?

Humans working specialized jobs for clumsier or less capable but intelligent species is also an interesting concept. How would that dichotomy work? Would we see them as lesser beings that we help out or would we see them as greater beings that help us out by having us assist them? Or maybe something mutualistic? It's very rare that I see fantasy or sci-fi media that touches upon species performing specialized jobs for each other aside from having different technology. Especially with aliens, who are usually just odd humans that happen to have hyper advanced tools instead of using biological traits.

>no reptilian species, sub-species, or breeds grow hair naturally

I've never really liked reptiles with hair or fur anyway. It would seem like a reptile that's trying to be as human as possible, intentionally or unintentionally. Similar to people who pretend they're apart of different cultures but have no origin in them, it would just seem odd, but I can see both sides. I wonder if reptiles would prefer using or not using hair when being around humans. I imagine some reptile cultures could exist where they collect hair from other animals and that could either been seen as a status symbol or it might be seen as odd or taboo to want to mimic other animals, similar to what you said about it having mixed reactions. Reptiles are cold-blooded anyway, I don't see why they would want to use hair to stay warm. Maybe if they used it to absorb heat from something else that produces heat?

>taking into account all the size differences and other things

I guess it depends on the purpose. If they're living amongst other species, they might shrink to more closely match their size to be able to use similar things. If they live in their own area, they might have specialized systems for visitors or anyone that's not the norm. Similar to how humans have a lot of handicap accessible features, but they're not entirely commonplace. Or how tourist destinations have translators or guides to help people who aren't familiar or wouldn't otherwise be able to read signs, but languages aren't universal. I guess it would depend on what they want to implement or how/if they segregate themselves.

I might get around to reading that pastebin, but I've never been big into dinosaurs or at least I haven't been too interested in imagining them as anthropomorphic. There's simply a lot of unknown factors which makes them more interesting to me as cryptids, mythical animals, or unevolved animals in an anthropomorphic world. If I get around to it, I might only reply to the topics or features I find interesting. Our ideas might be very different. How similar is your concept to Dinotopia? Where should I start? And would the "Dinosaurs" sitcom be worth a watch to understand this concept or is it too different?

>>118141

"Multi-Animal Lifestyle" is only a problem if you're trying to imagine how multiple different species would live amongst each other. My solution is that I don't. I might write a story first and worry about the worldbuilding later, or I might worldbuild and design a culture based around one species first. Because of this, most civilized animals I've imagined live amongst themselves with rare exceptions for symbiotic societies, merchants, travelers, etc. It's an opposite scenario to something like Zootopia where accomodating for all species leads to difficulty and instead boundaries are respected and level of interaction usually varies.

I'd imagine a were-worldbuild would also present some problems or difficulty. Wouldn't the transformations cause immense pain? How long would a transformation reasonably take? Would transformations be genetic or random with some sort of mystical reasoning behind it?

>>118276

>only a problem if you're trying to imagine how multiple different species would live amongst each other.

Well that's basically my point, yes.

>most civilized animals I've imagined live amongst themselves with rare exceptions for symbiotic societies, merchants, travelers, etc. It's an opposite scenario to something like Zootopia where accomodating for all species leads to difficulty and instead boundaries are respected and level of interaction usually varies

Aye, sort of how fantasy races like lizard-men and scavens and corvids have little issue killing and eating one another.

>a were-worldbuild would also present some problems or difficulty

True, but less of one given that the baseline is still human.

>Wouldn't the transformations cause immense pain? How long would a transformation reasonably take? Would transformations be genetic or random with some sort of mystical reasoning behind it?

The werewolf thread has a (slightly lewd) CYOA covering these question options, but typically it's easier to categorize and manage than the intricacies of a large varied group of different animals permanently anthropomorphized.

>transformation

As a side note, for werewolves I have seen 2 primary kinds of transformation;

A) (Harry Potter, American Werewolf etc.) Slowly growing fur and expanding, changing bone and muscles

B) (Hellsing movie, Trick 'r Treat (2007) ) The werewolf/human bursting or stripping out of their outer skins

>>118278

>Aye, sort of how fantasy races like lizard-men and scavens and corvids have little issue killing and eating one another.

This sort of thing has always bothered me, it just seems odd to purposely eat another species of an intelligent animal society. Instead, feral uncivilized animals still exist, commonly referred to as "ancestor" animals and often hunted by civilized counterparts of their natural predators. Cannibalism, or eating any other intelligent civilized species would result in disease or their mind detoriating into an unhinged bestial state that will eventually attack anything. A wolf that does this would look similar to most depictions of aggressive werewolves. Most animal species would instead adopt clothing as way to differentiate themselves from their ancestor animals and to avoid being killed on accident in addition to other benefits like pockets or fashion. Hunting or using other intelligent species for food would also be more difficult than relying on ancestor animals out in the wilderness.

>True, but less of one given that the baseline is still human.

I'd think there'd be some philosophical issues or questions regarding the logic behind transformation and it's implications. Would people inherently be afraid of certain transformations? Would there be laws or segregation against specific people or transformations? In what way would transformations be used? Would there be a purpose in most people having that ability throughout their daily lives?

>>118278

>As a side note, for werewolves I have seen 2 primary kinds of transformation

I'm also aware of a 3rd. One were the transformation is instant and the bestial form might as well exist as apart of another dimension, magical ability, phantom, etc.

Reposting for posterity

>What would scaly tits feel like?

Depends on if the scales covering the boobs are small individual scales or wider torso spanning ventral scales.

Former, probably just like regular boobs, though the surface texture's gonna be slightly bumpy, smooth, and maybe slightly prickly in a soft malleable way.

Latter, again much like regular boobs, though they're going to much prefer moving up/down over shifting from side to side, not that it won't have any give, but it's probably not going to be the most comfortable forcing them sideways. Also you're going to feel the horizontal ridges as you run your fingers over the scaly surface.

>>118282

>One were the transformation is instant and the bestial form might as well exist as apart of another dimension, magical ability, phantom, etc

Yeah I sort of discounted that since it's not so much a transformation as a switch, then again...

>it just seems odd to purposely eat another species of an intelligent animal society

You could put it down to cultural differences, sort of like how esoteric tribes in Africa and the Pacific Islands had Man-eaters and weird gay rituals.

>Instead, feral uncivilized animals still exist, commonly referred to as "ancestor" animals and often hunted by civilized counterparts of their natural predators

Sounds plausible, people do hunt monkeys and apes in Africa. And Kea parrots (whose intelligence is close to that of a 4-6 year old child) are certainly not averse to hunting other birds (though they seem to be the exception in Psittacines)

>Cannibalism, or eating any other intelligent civilized species would result in disease or their mind detoriating into an unhinged bestial state that will eventually attack anything.

Sounds a bit like the Dragonification from Fairy Tail's Dragon Slayers, namely Acnologia and the 5th generation Dragon Slayers

I think I've seen this concept done before in anthro media as well somewhere.

>Most animal species would instead adopt clothing as way to differentiate themselves from their ancestor animals and to avoid being killed on accident in addition to other benefits like pockets or fashion

And interesting evolution for clothes, unique compared to most humanized depictions not going into it.

>Would people inherently be afraid of certain transformations

possibly, but I meant trouble in terms of worldbuilding how people live and function in society (depending on how controllable these transformations are). The questions you ask are certainly things to consider, Harry Potter danced with the idea but seemed to forget it after Book 3, and only mentioned it in passing

>>117938

I'm going to repost it here in case it gets deleted

So a while back there was the interesting theory of how the Indominus converting the raptors to her side was sort of an allegory for teenagers getting enraptured with the bad new cool kid, (pic 1).

I wanted to expand on that by mentioning 2 things. This idea is set up by the fact that despite being their (former) alpha/parent the raptors attack Christ Pratt when he enters the and leaves the cage in the movie's beginning, when before they did not (seen in Jurassic World's sequel), just how moody teenagers will attack and resist control from their parents. Later on Blue and the raptors rejoin Chris to take down the Indominus and reconcile, which is sort of them growing out of their bratty teen stage and becoming young adults, of whom only Blue survives to mature into an independent adult.

> Alternate 'bad' end

> Blue gets defeated, dommed, and fucked by Indoraptor before he runs off into the night

> End scene is the camera slowly panning along the ground and stopping on a nest filled with hers and Indo's eggs while dramatic music swells up before the screen cuts to black

> New world order of hyper-intelligent Blue/Indo raptors

>Turns out, the best way to keep two murderous hybrid dinos from killing everyone is to have them fall in love with each other

>Indominus Rex/Indoraptor/Raptor hybrids become the newest attraction at the park

>Their brains are so intensely wired towards violence that it sort of comes back around and cancels itself out in some weird natural version of a short-circuit

>This makes them flargely docile compared to their parents

>They start becoming popular pets to adopt

> This is how the next Jurassic World movie ends

> Intelligent dinos integrate into human society and Blue finally goes to live with Owen

> Raptors, along with many of the more mentally competent species of dinosaurs, start pursuing college educations

> It starts becoming normal to see dino professionals in all lines of work

> Natural surgeons with claws acting as scalpels, lawyers using critical thinking and problem solving to dole out justice, the list goes on

> Large improvements to many lines of work are seen due to the unique viewpoints that the dinos bring with them

> Space Program revived with new dinosaur abilities

> Raptor Gagarin reporting in

>YWN work with your raptor wife to raise your raptor kids through their bratty teenager phase and help them become mature adults, rebellious bites and scratches be damned

A distinct problem with anthro animals is humanization and its limit.

The problem we struggle with is that of uncanny valley and how personifying works. Seeing an animal with human traits (including, for example, a human face) can be fine if done tastefully (pic 1), though extreme care must be taken to not hit on that uncanny valley, a concern not present when it's an animal face (pic 2). This divide is only worsened when, in the case of Cats, it's humans in crappy CGI outfits pretending very poorly to be cats. They kept each actor's face present enough that they were individually identifiable as their human, so we the audience suffered given the inability to separate Taylor Swift from the character, resulting in what basically amounted to seeing popular celebrities licking their crotches and pretending to be cats in horrible CGI outfits. When you fail to take away that distinctly human element in such a motion, it struggles to come off as anything more than erotic and horny, like the Tiger Lady-man Dennis Avner did (and Jocelyn Wildenstein). Even then I dare say the Pokemon Porn parody where a chick wears Pikachu body paint & mask, looked better.

The original Cats motion picture, being a theatre production put on film, avoids the issue by distinctly making it symbolic, going for cat-like features and actions parodying, but not completely imitating them.* The lack of modern eceleb fame meant that faces could be obscured a bit with make-up, face-paint and imitation fur, creating a distinct look without outright becoming practical effects, like the Roos from Tankie Girl. Compared to even Ready Player One (pic 4) it loses out, not to mention Hermione from Chamber of Secrets (2002! pic 5)

To expand on this, your first example is very well-done and looks great, but if I were to see a video of him, otherwise as a human, pawing at the ground and butting horns with another person also in a similar get-up, it would probably come off as looking like two dudes being horny, like they're a pin-drop away from locking lips, Andrew Hussie fashion. Seeing animals act like humans is cute, seeing humans act like animals is a bit less so.

*While I'm not a big fan of Lindsay Ellis, her "Why Cats" is an excellent deconstruction of the issues with the film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6iqAip-ZNo

>>118533

>>it just seems odd to purposely eat another species of an intelligent animal society

>You could put it down to cultural differences, sort of like how esoteric tribes in Africa and the Pacific Islands had Man-eaters and weird gay rituals.

Yes, but it's odd to me to think of a world where they eat other intelligent animals as a primary food source. These sorts of cultures in our world are already well secluded, remote, arguably primitive and less civilized. Being civilized to me implies skill of self control over instinct, desires, and urges in knowing which actions can be harmful and which ones can provide advantages, stability, resources, etc. Eating another intelligent species for food just seems odd when the species being used for food could easily organize and revolt. Because of that, I tend to think cannibalism in an anthropomorphic world would be as rare as it occurs in our world, but I can't deny that it wouldn't happen at all.

If it ever did occur that intelligent carnivores were using intelligent herbivores as a common food source, I'd be inclined to believe that the herbivores would organize against being hunted or farmed. Similar to how wolves used to be a threat to early humans, but their population is scarce now that we've organized to defend ourselves and our resources from them.

>Sounds plausible, people do hunt monkeys and apes in Africa. And Kea parrots (whose intelligence is close to that of a 4-6 year old child) are certainly not averse to hunting other birds (though they seem to be the exception in Psittacines)

Thank you. I have a hard time imagining a world where everything happens to have similar intelligence to humans or higher. It only seemed natural to have animals that exist with nature the way we're familiar with and could exist as a resource for the civilized animals to use similar to how we use animals. Each animal species might see their ancestor counterpart differently. Some might revere them, some might see them as inferior. It's another cultural aspect I thought would be interesting to explore.

>Sounds a bit like the Dragonification from Fairy Tail's Dragon Slayers

Hmm. I'm not too familiar with Fairy Tale. I want to say it would be akin to rabies or schizophrenia were eventually instinct takes over and rational intelligent thought goes away. Something like a true bestial werewolf that goes on a mindless killing spree.

>And interesting evolution for clothes, unique compared to most humanized depictions not going into it.

I'd like to imagine some animals would be aware that humans once existed and perhaps try to dress similarly or mimic humans as much as possible. Seems like a fun concept to think about, like having younger siblings that look up to you.

>possibly, but I meant trouble in terms of worldbuilding how people live and function in society (depending on how controllable these transformations are)

Like people that use their transformations to live in smaller housing? Someone that can transform into a mouse wouldn't need to spend as much effort on shelter as someone who can transform into a wolf. Would there be laws against that considering the advantage it can provide to some people while also being unregulatable with what transformation a person is born with? Would there be buildings with strict "No Transformation" rules to prevent espionage?

>>118563

> if stories of giants, minotaurs, werewolves, vampires, etc. were just over exaggerations of very unusual people and simply aren't around anymore because we found them too unsettling to live with.

That is quite plausible to be quite honest. There are too many mythologies and cultures that share similar monsters for it to be outright discounted. I only wonder where they could have disappeared? The Flight of Dragons book makes a good case for why they did not preserve well - hollow bones and rather insubstantial skeletons that decayed quickly. Or perhaps they disappeared with magic, now lost to humanity forever.

>>118562

> Being civilized to me implies skill of self control over instinct, desires, and urges in knowing which actions can be harmful and which ones can provide advantages, stability, resources, etc.

I definitely agree, however on the other hand I also think that this is a very human conception, and that depending on the creature they may have different standards, (i.e. what Star Trek explored with many alien races).

>when the species being used for food could easily organize and revolt

That's true, a bit like Maus ironically.

>Each animal species might see their ancestor counterpart differently. Some might revere them, some might see them as inferior. It's another cultural aspect I thought would be interesting to explore.

Indeed. It's made more complex in that humans have various views on ancestry over time and dependent on culture. Neanderthals were at one time thought to be missing-links or subhumans (which is why nazis used them as allegories for slavs) now people view them as similarly intelligent but differently focused and as having been assimilated into Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

Other aspects are that in Africa and far Middle-Eastern countries white skin, blonde hair and blue eyes were once seen as demonic or inhuman, while considered the reverse in Europe. There is even stories with this concept such as "Azur et Asmar"

>having younger siblings that look up to you

that would honestly be quite interesting. Might work best in a post-apocalyptic world wherein society has regressed into a medieval age with anthro animals having become denizens of the planet and living alongside the descendants of their human creators... perhaps something like Thundercats 2011's world.

>More transformation questions for writing a story.

You are a trove of ideas m8

As a side note, Redwall was mentioned a few times earlier in the thread and I lately recalled a wonderful book called Abel's Island, by William Steig, which also portrays small woodland animals in anthropomorphic ways, but makes sure to keep the aspect of small size in the story, reminiscent of Rats of Nimh as well.

https://www.fandor.com/films/abels_island

>>118028

>Horses were still used in warfare as late as World War II despite most countries involved having gone completely industrial by that time

True, but to be fair, the major use was as transport behind front lines. The only major attack was the Polish Charge at Krojanty that only succeeded because the German mobilization was still weak and was beaten back the moment armored cars with machineguns arrived. Given they had tank forces to match/overmatch Germany's, if they'd bothered to mobilize them in any capacity they would likely have beaten them (and ended WW-II preemptively) but I digress

The only other major use of cavalry or horse-drawn weapons of the same time-frame would be the RKKA (Red Army), wherein the horses would be used to tow 76mm and 57mm cannons or tachankas holding Maxim Machineguns. I think I recall a cavalry charge using Shashkas by the Reds, but it was used in surprise hit-and-run tactics against German infantry as part of reconnaissance - similar to Jeb Stuart's ride around the Union Army (http://www.newkent.net/historystuart.html).

TL;DR: It's very risky for live animals to fight (without serious counter-measure systems) against armored fighting vehicles and automated weaponry.

That said...

>akin to roaming guard towers

I imagine your view of this would be more of a medievalesque type sort of like Leonardo's conception of a tank, or perhaps the smaller city-crawlers from Mortal Engines, which would probably work much better - like shambling real life Rook Pieces.

>conflicts about vehicle operators who don't completely trust the Saurians or deem them too unpredictable or risk sensitive

Like the inverse of Jurassic World's raptor-soldiers, LOL.

> in the implications of Saurians in a non-warfare setting. How else would they be utilized? How would they live among or apart from humans or other intelligent species?

I would imagine something like Dinotopia, to be frank.

>>118029

>which question

The first one - should we integrate extinct animals into anthro societies that have evolved into anthropomorphism. Outside of Dinotopia's sapient ferals, there isn't really a way of doing that without outright ignoring that the extinctions of many creatures (like the dinosaurs) was key in the development of modern species (thus mammals could arise to larger size because of the KT event).

But as you said

>It's just fun to imagine hypotheticals while also trying to support them with whatever rules or laws you can.

Basically this.

>Like what sort of animals would be best at cleaning or performing what? Well we got wrasses and shrimps who do clean up jobs on coral reefs, picking out dead-flesh and parasites (something explored by the infamous Shark Tale) and on land crocodiles get Egyptian Plovers to pick their maws

and scales clean. And hippos let large river catfish do the same to their entire body while Oxbirds do the same for Savanna wildlife (while also creating nests on Giraffe manes). In other words smaller animals that can pick and groom carefully fit best. Some have theorized that Microraptors and the like, ate parasites on Sauropods and other big dinosaurs. Moreover monkeys and humans, with out dexterous fingers and thumbs are excellent groomers as well.

Humans/apes may well become a luxury service (assuming a feudal or capitalist system of socio-economics).

Since it's not a matter of product quality but services, the difference between poor and wealthy in terms of cleaning will likely be negligible outside actual doctor-work (like dentistry).

>How would that dichotomy work

Probably in a similar fashion to male-female dimorphism; whilst males are physically stronger and have higher strength ratios, females are more nimble and flexible - the same could apply in interspecies interactions of different sizes... rather emasculating in some way. This, assuming a functioning society and not species at racial odds with one another - which is quite possible - would require mutualistic relations.

>rare that I see fantasy or sci-fi media that touches upon species performing specialized jobs for each other aside from having different technology

Yes, indeed. I tend to think about it like how different organs work in the body - each species has it's own capabilities and inabilities (niches) and can thus be the best in those roles. And as it isn't a requirement for them to be pigeonholed into a role, there is no pressure either way - an individual could do atypical work for their species.

>never really liked reptiles with hair or fur anyway

Same. It only functions if it's portrayed in a plausible manner (like feather-strands).

>cold blood

Cold Blooded merely means that their bodies do not reliably produce their own body heat to keep them active, they still produce body-heat through basic cell interaction, just at much lower levels. But yes hair would be functionally useless unless it would be a thick coat of fur.

>live in their own area or not

Yeah that's sort of what was covered. It starts running into the problem we get with Zootopia - wherein tiny cars with Mice somehow are driving on the same roads as elephants and not being squashed... or when the cops DON'T have their own forces in the Mouse-town and yet don't like a rabbit catching a thief there.

>pastebin

Eh it's just some stuff people have made, not all of it is worth reading, just some ideas. I only brought up dinosaurs specifically since it was popping up in the thread. Functionally speaking, inserting them into the fray would be very hard.

My concept is basically Dinotopia but with somewhat anthro animals and a bit more technological progression.

>Dinosaurs sitcom

It's worth watching either way, but it is more of a satire of modern life portrayed through anthro dinos.

>>117941

>video

Dinosaur Laser Fight - NSP if it ever gets deleted.

If you like 'storybook illustrations' of talking animals, there's this Russian website called iknigi.net that hosts thousands of illustrations and texts from Russian storybooks. I'm not Russian so I don't know how to browse the site, but you can do an imagesearch like

лиса и волк site:iknigi.net

>>118568

>As a side note, Redwall was mentioned a few times earlier in the thread and I lately recalled a wonderful book called Abel's Island, by William Steig

That reminds me, William Steig also did other similar books that I cherished as a child. I wish more of his works were adapted into animation, I'd like to see an animated version of Dominic. I'm surprised that with the success of Shrek, no one has looked much into William Steig's other work. So many of his stories would be marvelous if they were animated.

>however on the other hand I also think that this is a very human conception

Perhaps it's considered a human concept because these actions allowed us to prosper and become intelligent. If other animals practiced these standards then surely their quality of living and intelligence would increase as well. For example, notice how more intelligent animals tend to be omnivorous or carnivorous and have smaller numbers of children and spend time raising them into adulthood. Maybe it's certain actions and behaviors that foster intelligence. An animal less reliant on instinct can spend more time to think about the world around them.

>That's true, a bit like Maus ironically.

There's a lot of historical allegory that could be used. Similar to how something like slavery is viewed as an all-around terrible thing. You could argue that animals we keep like dogs, cats, pigs, cows, etc. are enslaved but for the most part they don't revolt and don't seem to live their lives too differently being kept by humans or not. You could argue humans now are still enslaved or trapped by modern society, but for the most part everyone agrees to it because it generates more things for us. But anything that causes instability or threatens the integrity of a group is near universally seen as a bad thing despite the fact that at some points in history, slavery was common or a fact of life and some former slaves would go on to own slaves themselves.

>Might work best in a post-apocalyptic world wherein society has regressed into a medieval age with anthro animals having become denizens of the planet and living alongside the descendants of their human creators...

What I imagine is more vague. The humans don't live alongside the animals but the animals are aware of their existence but not what happened to them. It would be unsure if they left, died off, or are simply watching. General knowledge of humans would be things like "They were the first intelligent species. They were around for a long time. They had incredibly advanced technology. We don't know where they are now." Some species might consider that humans created animals to be intelligent, others might assume the animals stole what humans had, some might think the absence of humanity created a gap for other intelligent species to fill, some may not even be certain that humans existed or think it's an elaborate fairy tale to explain why all the animals have a similar form structure. It wouldn't be fun to think about if I provided a direct answer and I don't intend on having a correct answer.

>>118586

>Dominic

YES, finally someone else remembers this book. I read this so long ago, and no-one remembers it, so it feels like a fever dream from my past.

>I wish more of his works were adapted into animation

Same, maybe Wes Anderson could do it well or Aardman Animations.

>Shrek

Because the movie Shrek is distinctly digital and while a fun movie has slightly cruder humor that appeals to an American audience far more than the musings of a mouse or the adventure of a dog. Adaptations would likely do well in Britain however, as they love that kind of esoteric animal media (Farthing Wood and Watership Down for example).

>Maybe it's certain actions and behaviors that foster intelligence. An animal less reliant on instinct can spend more time to think about the world around them.

True, however we also see with Cetaceans and Elephants that intelligence can result in differing societies (as those two mammalian groups are typically either solitary or matriarchal depending on species for cetaceans).

>a lot of historical allegory that could be used

True. The unfortunate problem is running the risk of falling into the same trap as Zootopia and poorly showing this. However Beastars seems to avoid this trap as it forgoes the obvious race allegory people go for, and goes into differences between clearly different groups. Predators and prey aren't a shoe in for blacks and whites, but represent just predators and prey. In other words rather than simply transplanting the real-world equivalent directly, the authors realize that sentient animal people would be far more different to each other than humans are. There's a good video on this issue I saw a while ago, its quite interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oR6iET6FVo covering Umasou, Fox and Hound and Ringing Bell.

>Similar to how something like slavery is viewed as an all-around terrible thing. You could argue that animals we keep like dogs, cats, pigs, cows, etc. are enslaved but for the most part they don't revolt and don't seem to live their lives too differently being kept by humans or not

Sounds a bit like Animal Farm to me. While I dislike Orwell's poor attempts at portraying the story and characters as the USSR (mostly because it comes of as a caricature at best), it does portray a revolutionary path and it's risks quite intriguingly, as an independent story.

>But anything that causes instability or threatens the integrity of a group is near universally seen as a bad thing

Yes. It's why the Chinese have a proverb that, if you want to curse someone, wish for them to live in times of great change.

>You could argue humans now are still enslaved or trapped by modern society, but for the most part everyone agrees to it because it generates more things for us

Well more that people are not fully aware of things in the First World and the First World's governments dictate global policy directly or indirectly.

>The humans don't live alongside the animals but the animals are aware of their existence but not what happened to them. It would be unsure if they left, died off, or are simply watching

Sounds like an interesting idea as well. And your various ideas of in universe extrapolations on humans (creating intelligent animals or having their tech stolen) is like human mythology and it's various aspects (Prometheus, Odin and Mayan mythology comes to mind).

>It wouldn't be fun to think about if I provided a direct answer and I don't intend on having a correct answer

Well of course not!

>>118584

Indeed it is.

>>118569

>TL;DR: It's very risky for live animals to fight (without serious counter-measure systems) against armored fighting vehicles and automated weaponry.

Perhaps it could exist in a world where gasoline is discovered but not gunpowder and gasoline would prove too dangerous to have any application for weaponry.

>I imagine your view of this would be more of a medievalesque type sort of like Leonardo's conception of a tank, or perhaps the smaller city-crawlers from Mortal Engines, which would probably work much better - like shambling real life Rook Pieces.

Shambling rook piece is probably the best way to describe it. It would be something like a watch tower or guard post capable of movement and would buckle down and remain stationary so it wouldn't topple over when in a defensive position. They wouldn't be particularly fast or well suited for offense.

>>118580

If extinct species were included I think it'd be fun to still have some sense of mystery about them. Like having them secluded in a far off corner of the Earth complete with prehistoric environment. Or having them in some large underground hollow Earth world. Hidden worlds have always been an interesting concept to me and I think it'd be fitting to have species that were largely hidden or unknown to exist live somewhere in secret.

>>118590

>where gasoline is discovered but not gunpowder

Would be unlikely (given that gasoline's rather unique structure is what took so long for people to discover it, as opposed to Gunpowder). However yes.

>gasoline would prove too dangerous to have any application for weaponry gasoline

Pretty hard to do outside of an industrial scale anyway, so that's par for the course

>Shambling rook piece is probably the best way to describe it

Huh that reminds me of the Leviathan book series, with its mecha tanks (the Austro-Hungarians and Germans) used against bio-mechanical creatures. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(Westerfeld_novel)).

Also reminds me of Clabbernappers by Len

Bailey, as it had Chess Pieces as "warships" that traveled on Chessboard "seas". Among the 'characters' are Sarksa pirates (basically giant mantis humanoids).

>They wouldn't be particularly fast or well suited for offense

Like a mobile Pillbox.

>Like having them secluded in a far off corner of the Earth complete with prehistoric environment

Yeah that could work! It could sort of be like The Land That Time Forgot but anthropomorphized.

>Hidden worlds have always been an interesting concept to me and I think it'd be fitting to have species that were largely hidden or unknown to exist live somewhere in secret

Indeed. I honestly love the ideas of Jules Vernes, such as "Journey To the Center of the Earth" as they spawned ideas of exploration, including subterranean super-caverns holding ancient life (as we see in the rather silly The Meg book series by Steve Alten - where prehistoric sea creatures live in such a cavern.

Also >>118580

*correcting the greentext due to spacing error

>>Like what sort of animals would be best at cleaning or performing what?

<Well we got wrasses and shrimps who do clean up jobs on coral reefs, picking out dead-flesh and parasites (something explored by the infamous Shark Tale) and on land crocodiles get Egyptian Plovers to pick their maws...

So anyone wanna discuss (tribal) tattoos on furries and the problems of doing them? While scalies and thinly-furred animals may likely have little trouble (given that people have tattooed pigs, short-haired dogs and lizards), more thickly furred or feathered animals (such as a wolf) likely would have problems in visibility (or depiction) in having visible tattoos compared to something like a shark or hippo. As seen in examples, the tattoos on fur just look like they're painted over the fur (pic 3). What would be a way around this? How do people pull it off IRL?

RL pigs: https://modernfarmer.com/2014/05/o-inked/

NYC ban: https://www.inkedmag.com/original-news/pet-tattoos-banned-in-nyc

>>118582

Thank you! Although I'm not entirely sure where the illustrations page is, even with browser translation it seems like it's all text or just books.

>>118584

This one Soviet era cartoon called "Nu Pogodi" about a wolf and rabbit reminds me a lot of Tom & Jerry. It has more dialogue than Tom & Jerry and I don't speak Russian, but I found it to be enjoyable despite that. It features entirely anthropomorphic animals, no humans from what I've seen, and their personalities are similar to stereotypical behavior of what animal they are. Also reminds me of "Animalympics" in some ways.

>>118589

>Same, maybe Wes Anderson could do it well or Aardman Animations.

I'd like to see more traditional hand drawn animation, especially when the book already has such wonderful illustrations, I'd love to see it try and match that style as closely as possible. I'd imagine maybe these sorts of animations could do well if released as part of a "set" and be made with some of his other works. Maybe each different story could have a different style?

>as those two mammalian groups are typically either solitary or matriarchal depending on species for cetaceans

Still, I'd imagine their social standings and interactions would be similar to humans. They might have a matriarchal or solitary lifestyle but how they treat each other might look similar to what we consider a civilized society. They wouldn't have to be as social as humans or use the same resources but any irregular or dangerous actions that could harm the group would be phased out. Humans like to stay organized and have things neatly categorized, so I'd imagine organization and order would be one of the first steps of civilization. Could be why some people see "Cleanliness is next to Godliness."

>Beastars

Beastars leaves a bad taste for me. A lot of it's subject matter makes me uncomfortable or just doesn't seem right. I don't care if that's what could happen or not. It seems odd to present animals as intelligent and civilized but then have them revert back to or rely on actions or instincts that are similar to wild animals. It's like seeing an anthropomorphic cat lick itself or seeing another human eat with their mouth open or snarl at others, it just seems weird. If someone wanted to write about anthropomorphic animals why have them behave like regular animals? Or if someone wanted to write about non-anthropomorphic animals why have them behave like people? I can understand internalizing an animals thoughts using language. I think Watership Down does a great job at this as does NIMH. I feel there's a fine balance between it all and it can be difficult to get right.

>Sounds a bit like Animal Farm to me. While I dislike Orwell's poor attempts at portraying the story and characters as the USSR (mostly because it comes of as a caricature at best), it does portray a revolutionary path and it's risks quite intriguingly, as an independent story.

I don't think it's entirely supposed to be a 1:1 allegory or that it's supposed to represent a reflection of the Soviet Union, but rather allude to it or paint a caricature of it and provide an exaggerated example to more clearly highlight it's similarities.

>Sounds like an interesting idea as well. And your various ideas of in universe extrapolations on humans (creating intelligent animals or having their tech stolen) is like human mythology and it's various aspects (Prometheus, Odin and Mayan mythology comes to mind).

Yes, exactly. I always liked how vague folklore and mythology tends to be. Could be real, could be metaphor, could be a message, we don't really know except that depending on the person or culture, people believed all of the above. Each one has it's own merit and implications worth exploring. I think it's natural for people to want to believe in something that came before them and their species. Is something helping us? Is something deceiving us? Who are we? Where did we come from? How these questions are answered is what creates a culture. I think societies will continue to think about what was before them as long as they have the ability to question and wonder.

Thoughts on what happens when two different species breed and let's say to make it interesting, pregnancy is always successful?

Two possibilities I can imagine:

1. The offspring becomes a hybrid of the two species and shares traits of both. If the parents are similar species like a fox and wolf the offspring wouldn't look out of the ordinary. But the more distant the species are the more weird the offspring will look. If the parents are a fox and rabbit the offspring might start to look a bit odd. The real oddities begin once the parents have very differing anatomical features. If one parent has hooves and another has paws, it's hard to imagine what the offspring's hands could look like. Go further down that path, and there's mammals with flippers, wings, and nose trunks. Once we cross out of class mammalia and get to scales, feathers, beaks, and turtle shells things will get really weird. Would a furry society draw a line at how far interspecies breeding is allowed to go if pregnancy was always successful and offspring became a hybrid of its parents? Would the mixed-species population face discrimination for not being a pure species? Would anti-miscegenation ideologies arise?

Exploring one possibility, let's imagine a situation where we just stay within the same order. Order carnivora. If mixed-species carnivora animals always bred amongst each other for many generations eventually a kind of generic carnivora omni-species would arise. A species that resembles all canivorans in a way (canines, felines, ursines, weasels, raccoons, etc.) but is not one specific species. Or could this carnivoran omni-species be considered a new species of its own?

2. The offspring of two different species can only be either of the parents' species, not something in between. But the species works like dominant/recessive genes in a Punnett square. Some species are dominant and some are recessive. Say if a fox species is dominant and rabbit is recessive, if the parents were a homozygous fox-rabbit pair their offspring will always be fox, but will carry the heterozygous rabbit reccessive gene. If two different fox offspring from homozygous fox-rabbit parents reproduce, their offspring will be fox 75% of the time and rabbit 25% of the time.

(I suspect these ideas have already been explored by someone else in far greater detail. If such is the case please direct me to their work.)

>>118665

>Also reminds me of "Animalympics" in some ways

Probably because Brad Bird was involved in Animalympics

>I'd like to see more traditional hand drawn animation, especially when the book already has such wonderful illustrations

Yes, that would be great. I still don't understand 'critics' who say that "there is no/little demand for hand-drawn animation"

Most likely, due to modern schools no longer teaching proper style, few people in the population today KNOW how to do it.

>released as a set... maybe each different story could have a different style?

Sounds like a good idea.

>They wouldn't have to be as social as humans or use the same resources but any irregular or dangerous actions that could harm the group would be phased out.

Doesn't stop people today TBH.

>Humans like to stay organized and have things neatly categorized

We also like independence and to not be robotic.

>organization and order would be one of the first steps of civilization

True, however the progression of those societies would be based on their material dialectics, and thus the rather different mental and social aspects of cetaceans and elephants would probably lead to a distinct difference in it's development.

- In many ways I believe that an elephant's society would rely on matriarchal systems with males being more auxiliary, living and wandering territories, keeping them safe and stable while the females and younglings live in groups.

- Delphinid Cetaceans like Bottlenoses would probably mirror human development most closely given their varied behaviors - such as young males forming large groups and being rather... rapey; dominating other animals... such as fish corpses or Spotted dolphin males while forcing themselves on females.

- Meanwhile Humpbacks are very similar to Elephants, as are other large Baleen whales and Sperm Whales.

- Orcas on the other-hand seem to have massive extended families, with a few males, a dominant 'alpha' and a matriarch with sisters and daughters.

>I don't care if that's what could happen or not

It is important to consider, moreover Beastar's is a bit of an exploration of the problem of carnivores in a civilized society with their prey animals and what issues could come up.

>It's like seeing an anthropomorphic cat lick itself or seeing another human eat with their mouth open

Humans eat with their mouths open all the time, and you see animalistic behavior in humans all the time. Jealousy and anger over cheating in a relationship echoes back to possessive instincts of male ancestors.

>someone wanted to write about anthropomorphic animals why have them behave like regular animals

Because animal instincts exist even in advanced species, things like flight-or-fight and mate-competition.

>(not) supposed to be a 1:1 allegory

Given Orwell's personal history as a contrarian "leftist" who snitched on people to MI6 for being "jews" and "negros" as well as possible communists, it would be consistent with him. Like I said, his allegory is hamfisted to the point where it fails to properly reflect the mockery he attempted. As a general fiction it is quite well made however.

>I always liked how vague folklore and mythology tends to be

>Each one has it's own merit and implications worth exploring

Indeed, it reminds me a bit of DxD in how it accepts various religions existing independently.

>Is something helping us? Is something deceiving us? Who are we? Where did we come from?

<How these questions are answered is what creates a culture.

Excellently put! Indeed such existential questions are formative (and informative) of development of societies.

>>118586

Speaking of obscure literature with anthropomorphic animals, I loved Wind in the Willows as a child, both book and animated film. a real forgotten classic in my opinon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wind_in_the_Willows

>>118634

>So anyone wanna discuss (tribal) tattoos on furries

Middle-class 20thCen shit. Shit aged like milk. Nothing says "I was born in 1985! like 'tribal' faux-Polynesian tattoos.

What actual tribes did, and would have some relevance to primitive furry cultures, is scarification. Fur won't grow back on scar tissue, so it would actually work, unlike the hair-dyeing tattoos.

Too bad if you really only want gay fetish shit.

>>118813

>faux-Polynesian tattoos

...You do know that Maori, Hawaiians and many other South Pacific tribes did have tattoos like that right?

>aged like milk

<middle class

I disagree.

>Too bad if you really only want gay fetish shit.

I don't know why that's relevant but ok.

>>118817

>those societies that have their origins in the ocean-mastering Polynesia area

Yes and? That's exactly what I stated you fucking 😬retard; Maori, Hawaiians and many other South Pacific tribes

>you are clueless

I would say I am not. I may not have the understanding of culture the people born into them do, but I've read plenty of literature and know a lot more than some average joe off the street.

>self-indoctrination

indoctrination of what? Complex (tribal) tattoos are not endemic to the South Pacific, and tattoos in general have never been something done solely by 'the middle class'. If anything this was done by teens trying to be punks/rebellious, representing a statistical minority of the population.

>muh working class

I am of an immigrant family living way below the poverty line, so don't lecture me bucko. And Most complex tattoos are several hundred dollars. Moreover tattoos are often done in grungy little shops and often by people who are in fact in poverty. People living in Ghettos buy Mercedes and top-of-the-line iphones that cost 500$, somehow I don't think people care about prices when they just go into default on credit debt and don't care. Stop talking about poverty and how people act as if you know shit.

>meme tattoos

<waaaah I'm jealous of someone having a cool tattoo so Imma scream 'muh cultural appropriation!'

Piss off and stop virtue signaling on a mongolian throat-singing board, you radical-liberal LARPer.

>>118809

>Wind in the Willows

I love this kind of aesthetic, something about it is just very comforting. It's sad that it isn't as prevalent today, I wish there was more of it. Anything with a rustic, rural, atmosphere. Feels very friendly, as well as the general time period it's set in.

What makes a good plant anthro, /fur/? In my opinion Biollante or Audrey II are excellent examples of Planthros (just made that word up), as their animalistic traits (mouths, teeth, active motion) are plausible due to HOW they move and look. It's also why Poison Ivy, Ents, Groot or Swamp Thing are interesting depictions/characters of this idea.

With Mushrooms and Fungi, that grow and spread rapidly this is also a question of interest, with some like Armillaria (Godzilla the series) being somewhat mobile in real life. An anthro fungi could also be a species that, like known "zombie mushrooms" takes over the bodies of animals and develops intelligence through that. https://archive.is/eWv39

An interesting variation of this flora-fauna concept is from the original Star Trek Animated series, with an entire civilization of plant aliens; https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Phylosian

Also Plant anthro thread >>118483

>What is that about she wolves and their depiction that makes them attractive?

Wolves alternate between being sacred and cursed animals in Indo-European culture. Thanks to civilizations like the Romans, she-wolves actually have a reputation as being motherly and nurturing symbolically. Wolves obviously share a lot of behavioral associations with dogs, who always were one of the three sacred animals of Indo-European culture which has survived up to the present day, and it's basically 99% a lot of associations with friendliness, intelligence, nobility, loyalty etc. If you know about wolves scientifically, you also understand material like their pack behaviors* which drive that home. Also one of the few things distinguishing wolves from dogs behaviorally - other than domestication - is that wolves are monogamous, which added to the perception from Roman culture and the dog association with loyalty makes them seem like high quality wives and mothers. But unlike dog girls they also have that association with the primal, savagery, wildness, and freedom that appeals to people. Finally, modern culture has rehabilitated wolves and strongly painted wolves with anthropomorphic behavioral features - (which scientists will complain & deny even as more scientific evidence of their emotional and behavioral complexity comes to life) - that means we closely empathize with them and their behavior as if they were people, as we do with similarly communal and intelligent animals like parrots, dolphins and (again) dogs. That's why stories of wolf children like Mowgli are so common.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child (children raaised by wolves) Ex: Dina Sanichar

TL;DR: Portrayals of anthropomorphized animals almost always use the traits of the original animal, so a she wolf would probably be fit, wild, yet very motherly and protective of her den. They're both strong, tough, independent (warriors?), but also loving and caring, and very loyal.

*People always act like wolf women would be vicious, but they don't really understand how affectionate wolves are with each other. Like how they're one of the few animals that will feed and take care of an injured pack member, and when traveling will group up specifically to protect injured and weak members rather than letting them lag behind. Packs also don't have some alpha/beta dominance hierarchy in nature, a natural wolfpack is a monogamous mated pair of wolves and their several generations of children, sometimes including one of the pair's siblings or other close relatives, alongside various strays that may be accepted by the pack. It's all very similar to early primitive human tribes. The exception to this would be wolfpacks in areas like the Yukon, the packs of which are far less familial or close, as Jack London's White Fang describes.

Hot Take - the Sonic Movie provided a good way to integrate an anthropomorphic character in a human world by having him come from an alternate planet/dimension. This also gives a potential for future films and progression of the series' story.

Sonic movie thread >>103687