• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Do hulderfolk count as furry characters?

Zehlua

Magepunk Fashionisto
A hulder is basically a human with a tail and a few minor magical properties (turning into rocks, small animals, and trees for camouflage, sometimes they have super strength, and sometimes they have a back like a tree hollow.) They do not have pointy ears or animal ears, traditionally. Sometimes they have furless feet paws. Their tails are either foxlike or cowlike. They live in forests and/or near lakes and rivers. My fursona is technically a hulder who failed to turn into a bat, and ended up as an anthro.
 

quoting_mungo

Well-Known Member
They’re first and foremost Scandinavian folklore creatures; I think whether you feel they also fit into the furry envelope is something everyone will define for themselves. Like... are pooka (as described in World of Darkness; admittedly I’ve not delved deeply into the underlying lore) furry? Folklore and mythology predate furry fandom and I personally don’t feel comfortable with fandom “claiming” old beliefs, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that individual characters can’t exist within the framework of fandom.
 

Attaman

"I say we forget this business and run."
I've expressed this opinion a few times on here before, but generally whether something qualifies as Furry or not depends first and foremost on creator intent. Followed by common themes and popularity within the community and whatnot.

The reason I don't make a sort of default "Is or isn't Furry" is that a lot of things that are generally considered staples of Furry now (Aeromorphs, for example) don't hit any of the typical "Is it a Furry?" buttons outside "Is anthropomorphized". Likewise a lot of things that do hit a lot of the buttons (Shelob is my go-to, especially as recent media has given her an outright human intellect, speech, form, etcetera: Thus you have a spider with a great deal of anthropomorphic traits in a fantastical setting full of other such beings)... are almost definitely met with "Wut?" And then you get edge cases, such as whether anthropomorphic plants count as being 'natural' enough to fall under the Furry umbrella or if they're distinct enough to get re-classified like Robots and "But what if the author / artist was Horny on Main and made one sex monstrous and alien but the other just green skinned humans with leaves in their hair" and- oh dear I've gone cross-eyed.

Likewise, as @quoting_mungo said, it can get very... sketchy / uncomfortable when the things being talked about are active parts of mythology, faith, et al. A discomfort that only grows when they're still relevant / practiced / believed today: I'll admit that, while I love me some ancient Egypt mythology, I understand how it gets a bit... yikes, with its use / portrayals at times. But now imagine it's somebody doing that shit with a faith actively practiced by tens / hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people to this day, or a mythology that's already been rifled to hell and back for mass consumption / "exotic" exploitation.

Author intent handily gets around all these hiccups.
 
D

Deleted member 134556

Guest
I'll say they can be, one reason being because I find them fascinating and somewhat furry like, but due of the cultural and spiritual significance behind them, they must be used with respect and good intent.

Though I'm certain you mean well with your character, so I hope I didn't come off as rude.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

inkbloom

plant mom and mom friend
I think they occupy the same space as kemonomimi (anime characters with animal ears and tails), which is a grey area. They are as furry as you make them to be.
Your sona's background is very clever and a neat way to get around the more ambiguous nature of the creature.
 

quoting_mungo

Well-Known Member
Likewise, as @quoting_mungo said, it can get very... sketchy / uncomfortable when the things being talked about are active parts of mythology, faith, et al. A discomfort that only grows when they're still relevant / practiced / believed today: I'll admit that, while I love me some ancient Egypt mythology, I understand how it gets a bit... yikes, with its use / portrayals at times. But now imagine it's somebody doing that shit with a faith actively practiced by tens / hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people to this day, or a mythology that's already been rifled to hell and back for mass consumption / "exotic" exploitation.
I’ll note, just to clarify my own position, that for me most of the issue lies in declaring something originating outside of fandom as furry wholesale. When someone says that ancient Egyptians were furry or describe their pantheon as furry, I cringe. However, if you want to draw furry art featuring Anubis, your depiction can still be furry. It’s your creative work and doesn’t change the source material.

A semi-shoddy parallel with an active mainstream religion might be the divine cast of Lucifer (both the comics and the Netflix series). It builds on the mythology, but does its own thing with it, and doesn’t try to impose its creative decisions on the source material.

So yeah. Specific mythological creatures (“dragons,” for instance, are more of an archetype) I don’t think can be declared “furry,” but if you feel your interpretation of them is, that’s cool by me. (Obviously when it comes to entities from minority spiritual beliefs practice caution and make an effort to be sensitive about it.)
 
Top