6692677
Don't go anthro. Go one way or the other.

6692677
Well, in my case, it's because I find hands somewhat easier to work with than hooves, but I don't what them to be complete human either.

6692686
Do a story with humans or ponies; don't go Bojack Horseman.

6692677 Anthropomorphism tends to work better in visual art than it does in written form. I've yet to see an anthro story on here that was of high quality or not written for the express purpose of smut. Not to say that it can't be done, and the decision is ultimately up to you, but I'd ask myself "What purpose does it serve to have these characters as anthros?" Maybe you could capitalize on the animal traits that anthro characters would have (like Bojack Horseman does so well), or maybe you just like the aesthetic of it. Maybe it serves the story to have these characters like this because of the abilities it could give the characters.

It ultimately comes down to what kind of story you're writing, who your audience is, and your personal preference.

6692677
My guess is that it's just easier to write.
Anthro hasn't, and likely never will be my cup of tea, but to each their own.

6692677
A good rule to keep in mind is this: Is there a valid reason to have this within the story? Is there a point that it enhances, a theme it reinforces, a worldbuilding element that I require?

Or do I just want to put it in because I think it looks cool or it's easier for me?

Mind you, putting something in because you can make it work as a coolness factor is a reason to put something in, but often enough there comes up another little rule I have: If you hesitate or feel the need to ask, there probably is a reason that you do so.

For instance, let's go with your main character. Is there an actual reason, STORYTELLING-WISE, that he needs to have this condition, and if so, why not something different but specifically this? If you give a good, thematic reason (say, his condition makes others look at him like the demons he fights or he feels alien because of it) then why not something different instead that doesn't make him look like an anime character?

6692677
While I don’t really like anthro myself,
I have seen lots of others argumenting that it is easier to write about beings with hands and human-like anatomy. That’s kinda true on one hand, because it’s something we are used to, so we add it in the stories subconsciously. For example, look at the show itself. Many times we have seen cups with tiny handles or some fine cutlery, despite it being impossible to use with hooves and unicorns just levitate food straight up to their mouths. Oops, quite a continuity error, isn’t it?

So, I think going the easy way around it (being lazy or just not confident enough, if you wish) might be the main reason there are so many anthro stories of not exactly high quality. Personally, I think building and/or adjusting a world to equines is far more challenging, but also satisfying.

6692677
Personally, I like anthro in sci fi stories.

6692677
For me, it's fun.

6692677
You want to go anthro?
Justify it in your story.
Make sure that in your story, anthros make sense.
When readers read, they will understand why things are the way they are.

I suggest checking out the Spellsinger series.
It's a fun ride.
Info
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spellsinger

Animals in the Spellsinger world are sentient and are basically people with clothing and people issues.

This is for original stories though.

6692677
Why are characters elves, dwarves, aliens, robots, lawyers or some other inhuman beings? Because writer wanted to tell the story featuring these elements. They make those elements important to the story, weave them into the world they created. I suppose in the end most chose humans because we are humans.

6692732

Why are characters elves, dwarves, aliens, robots, lawyers or some other inhuman beings?

It really depends on the story, doesn't it? in Tolkien's Middle Earth we mainly got the Elves, the Humans, and the Dwarves. They all have a reason of being even from a creation standpoint within the mythology of the setting. The Elves represent the divine grace. They are the ones closest to the perfection of mind and body, the firstborn of Illuvatar and the favored of the Valar. The Humans are the second born children, brief and ephemeral, their lives a mere breath of the Elves but with the connotation that Death is a gift that Illuvatar has granted them that is far greater than what the Elves have. The Dwarves are the adopted children; made by a Vala in his impatience waiting for the first-born, and the reason they look and may act so crude is a leftover from their creation. Even the Orcs have an origin, being corrupted, tortured Elves, showing the ruination of Morgoth and his inability to create something new. They all have a reason thematically that gives a breath of life into the setting. They weren't simply slapped on like wet spaghetti thrown on a wall.

They make those elements important to the story, weave them into the world they created.

Exactly this. The point is making them important and integral within the world. They shouldn't have a taste of being glued on because they sparkle.

6692794
Actually Tolkien did not decide the origin of orcs. The corrupted elves was one of the theories he had. He didn't finish mythology of the setting before he died, what we got with Silmarillion was an unfinished work with some parts of it not matching the later created Lord of the Rings.

6692827
True, he didn't decide on the origin and that was one of the ideas he had, but it's not impossible that it isn't that one. It fits the whole concept of creation and corruption from Morgoth so I personally take it as the closest to the truth that we have. It makes sense, and to be honest I kinda feel like he didn't want to state clearly what their origin is. After all, it is the good races who get to have their stories in-world as they are the ones who sing of their heroes, feats, victories, and losses. The bad guys don't do that as their selfish nature robs them of the desire to invoke of someone else's accomplishments and it is one of the key differences between them. Anyway, kinda getting away from the point of the thread here, if I keep going I'll turn this into a LoTR discussion :D . Point is, you get what Tolkien was doing, even with just the unfinalized version of the orc origin.

6692844
Damn you Tolkien and your fascinating and detailed world building!

But anyway, I do understand why and how writers incorporate races. But really it is writer who should answer it. If the OP doesn't know why he wanted to use anthros then it probably is for the best not to use them.

6692677
You should only write for an anthro character when it makes sense for the story. Alternately, if the story demands an anthro character, write it.

We have anthros in Lavender Heart collab with Skaltrox Defiance Knight's character becoming alicorn Princess Twilight Sparkle, anthro edition). She can fly and use her magic.

6692677

Same reason anyone goes anthro:

And also:

6692677 There are a lot of reasons one might want to go anthro. In essence, all anthro is is giving human characteristics to animals, or alternatively giving animal characteristics to humans. This has been done for centuries and centuries. Why, Moliere's Renard plays are even taught in primary school where I was brought up.

Giving something an animal characteristic is usually a statement of some kind. Robin Hood is a fox, because foxes are seen as cunning and sneaky. Baloo is given as a loud, easygoing deep man's voice, because bears are seen as being kind of chill, but also loud and strong. Zootopia uses animals to tackle certain ideas we have about society more directly and obviously. A wolfman is seen as more feral, and so on and so forth. Or it could make an animal's trials and tribulations more relatable, by giving it physical and mental characteristics we recognise in other people. It can be more sinister, too, such as comparing humans to a more base creature, and rejecting the idea that we're somehow higher than animals by portraying us as animals. Or it could be as simple as making a show for children, and children like animals. Or it could be porn. Porn is a reason too.

Whatever the reason, animals bring certain images and themes to mind, because each species and even individual animals have personalities and stereotypes of their own, and evoking these images is as much a tool in stories as anything else. This can be used subtly, or very, very obviously. Not having a reason at all, in my mind, is probably the worst way of actually using an anthropomorphic character.

6692677

What im trying to say is what is the point of having anthropomorphic characters?

Appealing to people who like anthro, basically.

It's occasionally used as storytelling device, for example using anthro characters for symbolic or allegorical purposes and/or to make use of certain specific nuances you can get out it. (For example, Zootopia. Or, if you want to go really far back, Aesop.)

Mostly, though, it's just a particular style. The main reason for doing it is because there's a viable demographic. A lot of people, you know, really kinda like animals.

Heck, MLP is technically anthropomorphic to begin with, because ponies are animals who talk and behave like people. So you might as well ask: Why use ponies when you can use humans?

6692694

I've yet to see an anthro story on here that was of high quality or not written for the express purpose of smut.

I've read several. Where are you looking?

6692677
Sure you could have a human as a character.

Or you could have an anthro character.

Which one works in your story better?

--Sweetie Belle

6692677
I just used anthro to make the story interesting, and also it can impact the ponies or imply them to the original

6692953

Giving something an animal characteristic is usually a statement of some kind. Robin Hood is a fox, because foxes are seen as cunning and sneaky. Baloo is given as a loud, easygoing deep man's voice, because bears are seen as being kind of chill, but also loud and strong. Zootopia uses animals to tackle certain ideas we have about society more directly and obviously. A wolfman is seen as more feral, and so on and so forth.

That's the primary reason for anthropomorphic characters throughout the history of storytelling -- it's a shortcut to characterization, and a fairly powerful and useful one. Humans assign characteristics to animals based on (exaggerations of) their observed behaviour, and then in turn use the image created to describe humans via association with those animals. Sly as a fox, dumb as an ox, gruff as a bear, sneaky as a snake, acquisitive as a packrat, and so on. The images are evocative, and serve to help setup a basic character profile which can then be expanded upon.

Another common purpose is to give the characters some sort of special abilities within the setting, without resorting to magical or technological modification of humans. Want to make a character more-than-humanly strong? Make them an anthropomorphic bear. Want to make them powerful killers, then an anthro tiger or other big cat is very effective. Want characters who can fly unaided? Anthro birds. Want to make them exceptionally quick? Rabbit or cheetah, depending on what other characteristics you want them to have.

But ultimately, the anthropomorphization should serve the needs of the character and the story, otherwise there really isn't much point aside from titillation or laziness.