The Underground RP takes liberties in its world rules due to the circumstances we’re given; the gameplay should be fun and functional pass a level of ‘I am a dog and must eat food and sleep after I eat the food’. These RPs can feel limiting for some players who want to expand and have more control over what their characters can do and portray without seeming unlike their physical selves. This is where anthropomorphism comes into play, this is a type of personification, just more elevated and encompassing more freedom for the writer.
[What’s Anthropomorphism and How Do I Use It?]
The difference between personification and anthropomorphism are nuanced, especially in roleplays like ours where we would like our dogs to remain- well, dog-like! Barking, growling, scratching, and howling shouldn’t be forgotten as normal functions of said animal, but the dogs in our world should also be aware of themselves and their conscious decisions.
Personification: You look at your dog and feel as though he is smiling at you, your dog, however, does not know what smiling is nor the societal meaning of showing expressions to emulate emotion.
Anthropomorphism: Your dog sees you and thinks to itself, “Sarah did a good job today doing all of her chores, she looks so proud of herself, I’m going to reaffirm that she did well today and that I’m proud and happy for her.” And then chooses to display the action of ‘smiling’ to express its emotions to you and knows it’s actively taking a role to communicate.
In a very simplified way, these are the differences between the two roles being played, the difference between describing a character who knows it is actively thinking or not. What are some examples of this? Animal Farm is a book that portrays farm animals with political mindsets; they understand what it is to govern, be oppressed, take action, and distinguish the differences between themselves and others. Their thinking is advanced and pushes the boundaries of our expectations, given their animal forms. In a book like A Dog’s Tale, the main character shows emotion such as sadness, happiness, regret, guilt, and can notice the emotions from others too. They understand words beyond ‘eat’ ‘food’ ‘drink’ ‘sleep’ and speak coherently. (Source)
What is a movie you could compare our world to? While something like Zootopia would be too advanced for our dog’s sentience in terms of them being bipedal, having things like jobs, real government enforcement, and cities; something like Brother Bear or Ratatouille would be more alike our world in the ways which animals are doing things for themselves while also tending to the law of nature and being able to express human emotion (deciding to go on an arbitrary self-fulfillment journey, but also recognizing things like needing to eat, take shelter, and stay away from hunters/things that would kill you.) They are very human like mentally, but are limited by their animal forms and instincts. What would be some bad examples to portray our world to? Movies like The Fox and the Hound or Homeward Bound, are worlds where the animals still function on the basis that they need humans to direct their thoughts or actions and give them purpose otherwise they are just animals with no motives other than instinctual things like digging or eating. While these are fantastically executed and beautiful movies, they show more personification than anthropomorphism at the core.
[!] Having a character who is single-minded or has no motivations, can easily make them fall into the category of simply being a dog doing dog stuff (sentience), rather than an individual trying to survive and achieve reason (the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, and adapting practices and beliefs.)
HOW HUMAN-LIKE ARE SUKAS?
PERSONIFICATION & ITS LIMITS
Click me for the Q&A!
[QUESTIONS & ANSWERS]
Now that you understand what it means to be anthropomorphised, how do certain situations work in our world specifically? This is the FAQ for those specific answers.
Q: How advanced are the Sukas?
A: The dogs are advanced enough to know how to provide solutions to their problems through establishing rules, they find time to focus on tradition and culture and beliefs, they have reason to live pass just the bare minimum requirements of survival, they have needs/wants/desires that would be considered luxuries.
Q: Can they build?
A: In a very limited way, yes they can. They can build makeshift shelter, decorate dens, chip away at stones, and things of that nature. They cannot however, put in recessed lighting and make glass panels, or anything that would take a more niche and advanced knowledge.
​
Q: How do they use their paws as hands?
A: This is also in a limited way, but the dogs in this world can maneuver things with their paws, such as holding down items while they use their teeth to wrap something around said item, they can use their toes to paint and flex them individually to do things like tap or give directional points. They cannot however, do things like pull a trigger, wrap their paws around a sword and hold it, pick things up with only their paws, or do anything that would absolutely require opposable thumbs to do.
​
Comparison:
Georgette from Oliver in Company uses hand gestures to imply movement, and also her (whole) paw to apply and move things, while Charlie from All Dogs Go To Heaven uses more ‘hand’-like motions such as making fists, throwing dice, holding objects (his paw is separated into “fingers”).
​
​​
​
Q: Can the dogs stand and walk on their hind legs?
A: No as they are not bipedal creatures and should follow most physical limitations of their species.
Comparison:
Using the same two characters from the earlier question, we can tell that Georgette mostly walks on her four limbs, even if there are times where she is shown as distinguishing her upper and lower body parts as if they were arms and legs, however at no point is she choosing walking on two limbs rather than all fours. While Charlie can walk on his four limbs, he walks with two limbs in preference to having to walk on all fours. When he can and wants, he stands and walks, this crosses more into anthros/zootopia style movement.
Q: How do the dogs use their mouths?
A: The dogs have a lot more freedom with being able to maneuver things in their mouths. This means holding tools, wrapping things, pulling, and so forth. Doing things like scarification, would involve holding a specialized tool, and using the mouth to work the tool, instead of using hands.
Q: Can the dogs speak in language?
A: Yes, with a mixture of canine body language behavior and verbal behavior, dogs can also speak language and show to have different accents, speech patterns, and so on.
Q: Are these dogs able to have mental abnormalities, mostly pertaining to psychology, develop?
A: Yes, this is allowed in this rp.
Q: Can they talk to other species?
A: Yes and no, while the dogs can hear and understand species like humans, they cannot speak human tongue. However, upon encountering something similar to them in species, like a wolf or coyote, they should be able to talk to and understand that animal.
Q: Do the Sukas treat companions like pets or like partners?
A: Sukas can have companions in this world, that being said we will allow cross-species communication only with the Suka’s companion. Consider it something like being bilingual, you’re able to speak your own mother tongue, and speak to your companion and understand them specifically.