# Should Anthropomorphic Animals Wear Shoes or Not?



## Kryat (Apr 7, 2013)

Hello folks,


This may sound strange to you, but I am not a Furry (really, I am here just to grab attention and to meet cool people). Still, I like to deal with anthropomorphic animals in my work, because I feel most times an animal character can generate/trigger an emotion more human than any human character will ever manage to produce.


But dealing with a world inhabited by humanoid animals can sometimes generate some design challenges, especially when it comes to social/cultural habits and how the different species behave/react among their equals and with others. Which brings me to one of the biggest dilemmas that has haunted me ever since I started drawing these guys. Since you are all technically the experts when it comes to anthros/furries, I can think of no one better to help me:


*SHOULD ANTHROPOMORPHIC ANIMALS WEAR SHOES? OR SHOULD THEY STAY BAREFOOT?*


Help me solve this dilemma. Which is better and why? Lets come to a conclusion together!


-Kryat


----------



## Kalmor (Apr 7, 2013)

Mine doesn't wear them, since claws would rip the shoes to shreds within a matter of minutes.


----------



## MicheleFancy (Apr 7, 2013)

Depends on the shoes, the animals and just how close to humans your designs are.  An anthro animal, with almost entirely human body type aside from the head and fur, could definitely wear shoes without a problem.


----------



## ursiphiliac (Apr 7, 2013)

Horses can wear shoes. Humans can go barefoot. It's a rainbow of choices here.


----------



## RadioactiveRedFox (Apr 7, 2013)

It depends on personal preference and how human-like your chars are.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Apr 7, 2013)

http://www.baxterboo.com/images/store/medium/bb_893_1.jpg
Awww... look at the cute little booties.


----------



## Tiamat (Apr 7, 2013)

Artists/clients discretion.


----------



## Mentova (Apr 7, 2013)

I always liked the idea of anthro characters being properly clothed like humans are. There is a reason we wear shoes. :V

The only time I don't mind is like, hoofed creatures since hooves are pretty much shoes anyways.


----------



## Troj (Apr 7, 2013)

I think it depends on a) the species of the creature, and b) where the creature falls along the animal-human spectrum.

Unless the shoes are stylized and toony, or the anthro is a "petting zoo person" with humanlike traits, I often think shoes look odd.


----------



## Tigercougar (Apr 7, 2013)

I don't mind, just make 'em plantigrade. Though I do personally prefer for them to not have shoes.


----------



## Kryat (Apr 7, 2013)

Wow, I see many good points to both pros and cons. Indeed, I agree that a decision of wether or not a character should wear shoes can really be depend on how much human-like they are.
I also like what Raptros said. Some species - Like dragons, for example - would totally rip their shoes to threads with their big talon-like claws. Still, I guess a world inhabited by such creatures would surely develop some special kind of shoe for those fellas, right!

Since so many people mentioned the drawing style is important, i am posting some examples of what I do to give everyone a better notion of what kind of visuals my characters have...

*Characters with shoes:*
http://d.facdn.net/art/blackdoggie/1248656836.blackdoggie_neo_zack.jpg
http://d.facdn.net/art/blackdoggie/1309307711.blackdoggie__displayfirstbones.jpg*

Characters barefoot:
*http://d.facdn.net/art/blackdoggie/1309303175.blackdoggie__displayraffreadytofight.jpg
http://d.facdn.net/art/blackdoggie/1273169613.blackdoggie_kai_concept2k10-small.png


----------



## Heliophobic (Apr 7, 2013)

I personally think they look better with shoes. But yeah, it doesn't really make too much sense when you think about it. I guess I just prefer anthros to be as humanoid as possible.


----------



## Kalmor (Apr 7, 2013)

May I also point out that shoes don't really look right on non-plantigrade characters.


----------



## Kryat (Apr 7, 2013)

Raptros said:


> May I also point out that shoes don't really look right on non-plantigrade characters.



Right, that's another VERY important part I also forgot to mention in the beginning of this discussion. I am talking PLANTIGRADE feet here. When it comes to non-plantigrade feet I am all in favour of barefoot, giving them shoes is just wrong!

Great example by our friend M. LeRenard here:


M. LeRenard said:


> http://www.baxterboo.com/images/stor...m/bb_893_1.jpg
> Awww... look at the cute little booties.


----------



## Mentova (Apr 7, 2013)

Raptros said:


> May I also point out that shoes don't really look right on non-plantigrade characters.



When I'm bored I try and come up with designs for shoes for non-plantigrade characters. :V


----------



## Kryat (Apr 7, 2013)

Ah, something I think might be relevant to this discussion:

Take a look at this famous gif:
http://iruntheinternet.com/lulzdump/images/gifs/kitten-mittens-cat-shoes-funny-walk-13573978480.gif

As we can see, when we give real animals shoes, they seem to lose all their ability to coordinate a simple walk (Probably because they rely on some specific information they retrieve directly from the contact of their pads with the floor?). The question here is, would the same happen to an anthro? Thus making the most logical decision to leave everybody barefoot?


----------



## Kryat (Apr 7, 2013)

Mentova said:


> When I'm bored I try and come up with designs for shoes for non-plantigrade characters. :V


Hahaha sounds fun! Gotta try it sometime.


----------



## BlueStreak98 (Apr 7, 2013)

If you have plantigrade feet, then you have shoes.

If you have digitigrade feet, then you have no shoes.

If you have hooves, you might have horseshoes, or something rubber tipped that's similar to provide grip. Otherwise I don't see you doing to well on tile floors...

That's my opinion.


----------



## Kalmor (Apr 7, 2013)

Mentova said:


> When I'm bored I try and come up with designs for shoes for non-plantigrade characters. :V


I'd love to see these haha.


----------



## Mentova (Apr 7, 2013)

Raptros said:


> I'd love to see these haha.



If I could draw without it looking the a 4 year old scribbling with crayons I'd draw some.


----------



## benignBiotic (Apr 7, 2013)

Whether or not an anthro should wear shoes is at the artists discretion. 

Personally I like anthros without shoes. Let those extremities breathe.


----------



## Kryat (Apr 7, 2013)

Kryat said:


> Ah, something I think might be relevant to this discussion:
> 
> Take a look at this famous gif:
> http://iruntheinternet.com/lulzdump/images/gifs/kitten-mittens-cat-shoes-funny-walk-13573978480.gif
> ...



What's your take on this, folks?


----------



## Judge Spear (Apr 7, 2013)

BlueStreak98 said:


> If you have plantigrade feet, then you have shoes.
> 
> If you have digitigrade feet, then you have no shoes.
> 
> ...



She pulls it off nicely.





I've seen what her people look like barefoot with their face exposed too. I'm not sure what they're called though, so I can't find the pic.
Nother pic from the side.


----------



## benignBiotic (Apr 7, 2013)

Kryat said:


> What's your take on this, folks?


I'm not sure things need to be taken that seriously. 

If you want your anthros to have shoes give them shoes.


----------



## Kryat (Apr 7, 2013)

Yeah, after having this talk I am going with barefoot. Not only it looks cool, but it also gives a more bestial feel to the character. I don't wan't them looking too human.

It was pretty cool having this discussion with you all. You guys rock!


----------



## Stratelier (Apr 7, 2013)

Kryat said:


> Ah, something I think might be relevant to this discussion:
> 
> Take a look at this famous gif:
> http://iruntheinternet.com/lulzdump/images/gifs/kitten-mittens-cat-shoes-funny-walk-13573978480.gif
> ...


No, I think it's because they have something funny on their feet.  A cat that's taken steps through deep mud would probably walk the same way.


----------



## TrinityWolfess (Apr 7, 2013)

I think it really depends on the character. Whose ever fursona it is can choose with or without shoes and or both. I prefer without shoes because I like the more realistic look.


----------



## Summer (Apr 7, 2013)

Mine sometimes wear shoes. If they are going to wear clothes, I don't see why wearing shoes is an issue.


----------



## Riho (Apr 8, 2013)

Since a fursona is a person's own creation, it is their choice whether or not the fursona has shoes or not.
Mine does not, finding them uncomfortable for his ditigrade form. Also, he just doesn't like shoes, period.


----------



## Vaelarsa (Apr 8, 2013)

There is no "should" or "should not."
This all depends on what the creator / owner of the character wants to do, and neither is better than the other.

My fursona wears shoes most of the time, just because I want her to.
Because I wear shoes. And I tend to draw her in clothes I wear.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Apr 8, 2013)

I like no shoes on anthros, that and I like paws so no shoes is a given.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Apr 8, 2013)

Kryat said:


> Still, I like to deal with anthropomorphic animals in my work, because I feel most times an animal character can generate/trigger an emotion more human than any human character will ever manage to produce.



I must agree. I feel that people don't mention this enough. 

Anyway, OT: I must point out you'll want to think of the tone of your work as well. Do you want to make the anthro animals more human like in a more serious, realistic setting? If so, go with the shoes. If you want something more light and breezy it would make sense to leave your characters with just barefeet. To me, shoes represent a rigidness in a character. I tend to add them to furries if I want to suggest a very domineering personality. It makes them seem much more "closed" compared to those without shoes.


----------



## benignBiotic (Apr 8, 2013)

I know you're decided OP, but here's a thought: Maybe you could use alternative footwear? Like I've seen a lot of scalies who wear kind of 'sandals' that give them some protection on the sole of their foot, but their toes/claws are still available. 

That's the other thing. Many animals have claws/talons/whatev that would make wearing shoes awkward/undesirable. If I were an anthro I'd want access to my claws, etc.

But like Butters and others have said it depends on the mood of your work. Shoes will be fine in a more cartoony piece, but if you're trying to be realistic you'll need to be creative to make shoes work. Just my non-artist opinion.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Apr 8, 2013)

I prefer plantigrade, shoed characters.

But it really does depend on the character. One with a werewolfish skeleton and posture wouldn't look too right with shoes. And a plantigrade kangaroo anthro character would lose something by not having comically large feet. 

And on the other hand, shoes can say something about the character's personality (as can no shoes). 

One of my female characters wears these.

Another female wears these.

And for another, these.

Surely you can guess a couple of things about the characters just by looking at what they like on their feet!


----------



## Dreaming (Apr 8, 2013)

Kryat said:


> *SHOULD ANTHROPOMORPHIC ANIMALS WEAR SHOES? OR SHOULD THEY STAY BAREFOOT?*



... I would say it depends on design, levels of toonderp. If we're talking Mickey Mouse/Disney levels of animation here, anything works really. If we're going for full-out detail effect, again it depends on what's going on with the rest of the design (like, are the wearing anything else? Just shoes? Just shoes seems a little strange but if it works... )

There's no established standard of design when it comes to animation, that's the greatest thing! Go wild


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Apr 8, 2013)

I would like my character to have shoes without socks.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Apr 8, 2013)

I guess most anthropomorphic creatures that retain some of their anatomy would have trouble getting into human manufactured shoes. It's going to cost in the health of the foot or the health of the shoe unless you design it for them.


----------



## Recel (Apr 8, 2013)

I never draw anthros with footwear. Tho I don't think it's bad. It all depends on how it looks in the end.


----------



## Harbinger (Apr 8, 2013)

Barefeet master race, wolf and other predator paws are padded for stealth, would come in handy.


----------



## badlands (Apr 8, 2013)

mine is digitigrade so i don't think shoes look right, despite the fact he wears normal human clothes on the rest of his body


----------



## Artillery Spam (Apr 8, 2013)

What Pachi said.


----------



## benignBiotic (Apr 9, 2013)

My sloth doesn't wear shoes because he needs his claws for tree climbing.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Apr 9, 2013)

They should if they have human-style feet.


----------



## Kryat (Apr 9, 2013)

Harbinger said:


> Barefeet master race, wolf and other predator paws are padded for stealth, would come in handy.


That is one excellent point!


----------



## Kryat (Apr 9, 2013)

Character personality and clothing style apart. The conclusion I am reaching is that more human-like anthros should probably wear some sort of shoe, while a more animalistic look would call for barefoot. Also, any non-plantigrade character should never put anything on for the simple reason it would look out of place.


----------



## Harbinger (Apr 9, 2013)

Kryat said:


> Character personality and clothing style apart. The conclusion I am reaching is that more human-like anthros should probably wear some sort of shoe, while a more animalistic look would call for barefoot. Also, any non-plantigrade character should never put anything on for the simple reason it would look out of place.



Go digitigrade or go home i always say.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Apr 9, 2013)

Not all animals are digitigrade though..


----------



## ursiphiliac (Apr 9, 2013)

Gibby said:


> One of my female characters wears these.
> 
> Another female wears these.
> 
> ...



Yup. They're all lesbians. :V


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 9, 2013)

Uh, wear shoes if you want.

Anybody who wants to stop you is a prude. :U


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Apr 9, 2013)

ursiphiliac said:


> Yup. They're all lesbians. :V


 lmfao


----------



## Harbinger (Apr 9, 2013)

d.batty said:


> Not all animals are digitigrade though..



I mean when it involves fursona's of naturally digitigrade species.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Apr 9, 2013)

Harbinger said:


> I mean when it involves fursona's of naturally digitigrade species.


True, but its impractical with bipedal anthros, but they are fantasy creatures so I can go either way


----------



## Kryat (Apr 9, 2013)

Harbinger said:


> I mean when it involves fursona's of naturally digitigrade species.



When you are going for realism, digitigrade is the way to go. But as soon as you step out of it, many character designs would never work if you don't make them plantigrade, especially when you are making something more cartoonish.


----------



## Kaedal (Apr 9, 2013)

For digitigrade? Never. Plantigrade? Depends on the style, and whether it works. Too many factors to say anything decisively there.


----------



## Lauralien (Apr 10, 2013)

Kryat said:


> Character personality and clothing style apart. The conclusion I am reaching is that more human-like anthros should probably wear some sort of shoe, while a more animalistic look would call for barefoot. Also, any non-plantigrade character should never put anything on for the simple reason it would look out of place.



No no, there is no "should" or "would call for" here.  If you want to create a shoe that works on a digitigrade canine foot, go for it.   If you want plantigrades to go barefoot, that's fine too.   Just do what you personally prefer (or what your client prefers in those cases)....the freedom to design _your_ character the way _you_ want - whether anyone else likes it or not - is one of the core ideas of this fanbase.

For my own characters, their species stands digitigrade on two front and two back toes.  I figure they can wear these sort of...padded toe-sock things...sometimes with a hole in each toe to allow the nail through.  It's a bit awkward and annoying to design them, and I like the barefoot look, so I just decided they're barefoot most of the time.  They would only have to wear 'shoes' in certain areas or professions - ie, if they're in a place where they're likely to step on something quite painful.


----------



## Retro (Apr 11, 2013)

I don't think that anthros should wear shoes since most anthros have claws, and shoes plus claws equals broken shoes.


----------



## dcdsharkattack03 (Apr 11, 2013)

Why not leave it up to the individual character's personal preference?  Mine doesn't wear shoes only because he spends most of his time in or near water and prefers the convenience, but one of a similar species might feel differently.


----------



## lupinealchemist (Apr 11, 2013)

Depends. If they're plantigrade, sure; If they're digitigrade, it would be expensive.


----------



## Fox_720B (Apr 13, 2013)

I think it can go either way depending on one's preference. However one would have to think that fur-covered paws stuck inside shoes all day would present some very interesting side effects. I can imagine a host of problematic rash and fungus issues that shoe-wearing anthros could suffer. I suggest that if anthros were real their shoes would need to be of a very breathable and flexible material for them to be even remotely comfortable.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Apr 13, 2013)

Fox_720B said:


> I think it can go either way depending on one's preference. However one would have to think that fur-covered paws stuck inside shoes all day would present some very interesting side effects. I can imagine a host of problematic rash and fungus issues that shoe-wearing anthros could suffer. I suggest that if anthros were real their shoes would need to be of a very breathable and flexible material for them to be even remotely comfortable.


 eww gross.


----------



## Zuranis (Apr 13, 2013)

I've always thought that shoes fit plantigrades a lot better than digitigrades. But as a whole I think anthros look much better barefoot. Someone mentioned it before (which I'm too lazy to find to quote) but shoes take anthro appearence a small step further to making the characters seem "too human" - if you get what I mean.


----------



## Umbra.Exe (Apr 13, 2013)

I think it depends on the "human-ness" of the feet. If a plantigrade animal still has pads and claws, shoes might be unneccessary or impractical. If it's more of a human, non-padded foot, shoes would probably protect the feet better.

It also depends on environment. Even a padded paw might need some shoe protection in an urban area, from hot asphalt, rocks, or maybe even broken glass (and other sharp things). In a natural setting though, like a forest... Many animal paws are adapted for a natural environment, so shoes are probably not necessary.


----------



## Ikrit (Apr 13, 2013)

i hate wearing shoes IRL

thus, no shoes

i hate having to wear shoes all year round due to the fact that i need a lift in my shoe, i'd rather have my short leg broken and stretched...


----------



## dcdsharkattack03 (Apr 13, 2013)

Fox_720B said:


> I think it can go either way depending on one's preference. However one would have to think that fur-covered paws stuck inside shoes all day would present some very interesting side effects. I can imagine a host of problematic rash and fungus issues that shoe-wearing anthros could suffer. I suggest that if anthros were real their shoes would need to be of a very breathable and flexible material for them to be even remotely comfortable.



I actually own a pair of work boots that have mesh vents in the sides to help alleviate the moisture/heat issue.  Depending on the time period the character lives in, it's not an entirely insurmountable problem. 

I'm more curious about anthros wearing socks.  Presumably, if they're of a furred nature, socks would be redundant?


----------



## Lauralien (Apr 14, 2013)

Fox_720B said:


> I think it can go either way depending on one's preference. However one would have to think that fur-covered paws stuck inside shoes all day would present some very interesting side effects. I can imagine a host of problematic rash and fungus issues that shoe-wearing anthros could suffer. I suggest that if anthros were real their shoes would need to be of a very breathable and flexible material for them to be even remotely comfortable.



Well, rash and fungus issues can happen to humans too.    (eww)

In terms of the logic and "realism" or shoe-wearing-anthros...I'd mostly think it wouldn't work out because a traditional shoe could potentially rub the paw fur the wrong way.   For me, wearing socks can sometimes irritate the skin around my ankles, so I imagine for a furry person it might be frustrating or itchy to wear something that interferes with the natural movement of those sensitive hairs.


----------



## ursiphiliac (Apr 14, 2013)

I'm always a little confused about the fur aspect. I mean, it would be a big part of most mammalian characters, right? We're even called furries. But I see a lot if art with detailed muscle and skeletal definition, aureolas, navels, even _tattoos, _all of which would be at least partially obscured by fur of any considerable length. The character ends up looking like it has fur-colored skin. I guess it's a style, but I haven't been sure whether the artists actually consider the characters smooth and this is a thing. ??


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Apr 15, 2013)

ursiphiliac said:


> I'm always a little confused about the fur aspect. I mean, it would be a big part of most mammalian characters, right? We're even called furries. But I see a lot if art with detailed muscle and skeletal definition, aureolas, navels, even _tattoos, _all of which would be at least partially obscured by fur of any considerable length.


My guess is dye to the fur every now and then. Not a tattoo like we have.


----------



## Umbra.Exe (Apr 15, 2013)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> My guess is dye to the fur every now and then. Not a tattoo like we have.



I always thought they could find a way to change the color that the follicle itself produces somehow, resulting in a permanent marking. Doesn't make much sense when you think about it, but then again neither do upright digitigrade bipeds... It also probably wouldn't make sense for unnaturally colored "tattoos", but then, there are unnaturally colored characters as well.

Himalayan rabbits could always just shave a patch of their fur in the desired shape, and keep an ice pack on it. The hair there would then grow in black instead of white...


----------



## ursiphiliac (Apr 15, 2013)

Well, tattoos that are drawn exactly like they would be if they were on skin is what I meant, making it look like there's no fur there at all. Dyed fur would really limit the details and clarity that a design could have because how the fur lays would be variable, unless it's very short, but I've seen some furry art with impossibly intricate "tattoo" designs on species that generally don't have very short fur. Dyed fur can be drawn to look like dyed fur, and I wouldn't have any confusion about that. Anyway, I was only generally talking about characters drawn in such a way that it's hard to imagine there's any fur, because of features that are drawn as visible as they'd be on a furless body (muscle definition, areolas, navels, etc.)


----------



## Kryat (Apr 17, 2013)

ursiphiliac said:


> Well, tattoos that are drawn exactly like they would be if they were on skin is what I meant, making it look like there's no fur there at all. Dyed fur would really limit the details and clarity that a design could have because how the fur lays would be variable, unless it's very short, but I've seen some furry art with impossibly intricate "tattoo" designs on species that generally don't have very short fur. Dyed fur can be drawn to look like dyed fur, and I wouldn't have any confusion about that. Anyway, I was only generally talking about characters drawn in such a way that it's hard to imagine there's any fur, because of features that are drawn as visible as they'd be on a furless body (muscle definition, areolas, navels, etc.)



How about when you mark cattle with a hot rod? That looks very tattoo-ish to me. And I'd say it works on long fur as well, since those animals generally don't have their fur growing more than a set size.


----------



## Lauralien (Apr 17, 2013)

Kryat said:


> How about when you mark cattle with a hot rod? That looks very tattoo-ish to me. And I'd say it works on long fur as well, since those animals generally don't have their fur growing more than a set size.



Burning the skin with red-hot iron rods in order to cause a bald spot?   Blegh.  
It _would_ create a long-lasting form of body art, but I think it's safe to say that very few people would volunteer to go through a procedure like that.


----------



## RadioactiveRedFox (Apr 17, 2013)

Lauralien said:


> Burning the skin with red-hot iron rods in order to cause a bald spot?   Blegh.
> It _would_ create a long-lasting form of body art, but I think it's safe to say that very few people would volunteer to go through a procedure like that.



I think you would be surprised, people do get branded already even though it would be easier and probably less painful just to get tattooed.


----------



## mojisu (Apr 17, 2013)

Bam Margera volunteered to brand a dick on his ass...


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 17, 2013)

mojisu said:


> Bam Margera volunteered to brand a dick on his ass...



"Dunn branded a dick farm on my ass."


----------



## mojisu (Apr 17, 2013)

Lucy Bones said:


> "Dunn branded a dick farm on my ass."


and he was a good man


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 17, 2013)

The Jackass guys are my heroes. 

I cried for days after Ryan Dunn passed.


----------



## Umbra.Exe (Apr 17, 2013)

ursiphiliac said:


> Well, tattoos that are drawn exactly like they would be if they were on skin is what I meant, making it look like there's no fur there at all. Dyed fur would really limit the details and clarity that a design could have because how the fur lays would be variable, unless it's very short, but I've seen some furry art with impossibly intricate "tattoo" designs on species that generally don't have very short fur. Dyed fur can be drawn to look like dyed fur, and I wouldn't have any confusion about that. Anyway, I was only generally talking about characters drawn in such a way that it's hard to imagine there's any fur, because of features that are drawn as visible as they'd be on a furless body (muscle definition, areolas, navels, etc.)



Ah, I see what you mean there. I'm wondering if I've been guilty with the whole "muscle definition" bit on some of my other drawings... But that is true, fur should cover up fine details and make tatoos look "fuzzier" around the edges, I would think... And you can forget about fine linework.

Depending on the animal, the navel might show up, because some animals (such as dogs) have almost hairless bellies. But then again, people usually draw animals evenly-furred on their whole bodies, for the most part at least...


----------



## Lauralien (Apr 17, 2013)

RadioactiveRedFox said:


> I think you would be surprised, people do get branded already even though it would be easier and probably less painful just to get tattooed.



I have no doubt there are some crazy people that are branded (the "very few volunteers" that I mentioned).  I was just content to leave them at a great mental distance, as some seldom-spoken-of group of masochists.   That way maybe I wouldn't feel as compelled to do a Google image search.

...

I wish I hadn't Google image searched human branding.  :|


----------



## Bluey (Apr 17, 2013)

Shoes could be good for wolvies for sake of our beds xD


----------



## Batty Krueger (Apr 17, 2013)

Lauralien said:


> I have no doubt there are some crazy people that are branded (the "very few volunteers" that I mentioned).  I was just content to leave them at a great mental distance, as some seldom-spoken-of group of masochists.   That way maybe I wouldn't feel as compelled to do a Google image search.
> 
> ...
> 
> I wish I hadn't Google image searched human branding.  :|


Just imagine that smell!


----------



## Summer (Apr 18, 2013)

dcdsharkattack03 said:


> Why not leave it up to the individual character's personal preference? Mine doesn't wear shoes only because he spends most of his time in or near water and prefers the convenience, but one of a similar species might feel differently.



There's always boating shoes for species like this if they wanted them.


----------



## nonconformist (Apr 18, 2013)

Final verdict: people are strange.


----------



## ursiphiliac (Apr 18, 2013)

Heeey, that's not a verdict! That's FAF's mission statement! :V


----------

