Male Viera as a playable character! show your support

[Gwenorai]

From what I gather, and I may be wrong, each option takes up another means of customization. So like, if there was a tuft of fur, and it was a customizable option, it would take up the place of something else, something like ear/ear size would take up that slot, hyur have muscle slider. If the tuft of fur was permanent to the body, or maybe added to features (?) it could work, I think. I'm not exactly sure how their character creation works, and I am probably wrong, but that's what I've gathered.

Personally I wouldn't want the tuft of fur, I think it it would look dumb, but that's just me. Rather, I wouldn't want it permanent to the character, if it was an option I wouldn't mind, but we might not get a choice. Still I probably wouldn't play a male viera, so I don't really have a horse in this race.

I wouldn't mind the hair turf since it would separate them out a little from the females. I don't know like this is an unseen part of the race - it gives them the opportunity to make the males be a lot more than just a duplicate of the females with just male aesthetic. I would love the hair turf, but I'd also want them to have jackalope horns as well. I think that'd be so cool. The only issue with the horns would be that they would be tied to the face though - I imagine. As well as clipping, but aura go through that problem every waking day.

As long as the hair turf didn't take up something else in customisation. I could deal with it.

Also, I was reading about Hares and this stuck out.

'Rabbits tend to be social animals that live in groups. Hares spend most of their time by themselves, only pairing up occasionally to mate.' So, it seems that the males and all that are just separate for the sake of following their animal inspiration. 'Hares'. Part of me wonders if they even care about being alone, or if the males actually enjoy it and thus it's a reward for them to live alone.

I also can't see any information where the male hare is smaller than the females. And of course, there are also the mating habits where a male will find the females and mate with several of them before going off. I guess that's why they're classes as polygamous and promiscuous during the mating season. It wouldn't be that much of a stretch since Miqote has the same deal. So, unless it's not as simple as it seems to be and they're not basing the males on their aggressive animal counterparts then there could be size difference. Otherwise, from what I can see so far - male hares are not that different in size to the females, from what I can see so far. I'll continue to flick through the internet and check, but eh, none of these websites mention a huge size difference - if at all. That being said, there's no reason for the dudes to be different in size than the females, we can't keep using the 'rabbit' argument - they're not rabbits.

Edit: Senn posted some examples of some species of Hare being smaller than the females in regards to the weight which is genuinely a >%5 difference. I stand by my argument that it's really not worth making them smaller regarding that - and if they were then the males shouldn't be smaller in height, but have less fat. Which is the case, the males have zero body fat. The females, however, do have curves and have fat retention.

[Senn]

...

"Hares and jackrabbits are leporids belonging to the genus Lepus"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare

There is a trend of female hares (Jills) being larger than male hares (Jacks).

Lepus nigricollis - Regardless of location, female L. nigricollis tend to be larger than males.
https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Lepus_nigricollis/

Lepus califomicus - In Kansas, sexual dimorphism exists in mass and length of adults; females are larger than males. As the breeding season begins, difference in mass between sexes increases until a maximum is reached in mid-summer. Toward the end of the breeding season in late summer, males begin to gain mass and females to lose mass. After the breeding season, mass is nearly the same for both sexes.
https://watermark.silverchair.com/53...1BebEH_JJ164RA

Lepus timidus / Mountain hare - Females tend to be larger than males.
http://wildpro.twycrosszoo.org/S/0ML...us_timidus.htm

[Gwenorai]

"Hares and jackrabbits are leporids belonging to the genus Lepus"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare

There is a trend of female hares (Jills) being larger than male hares (Jacks).

Lepus nigricollis - Regardless of location, female L. nigricollis tend to be larger than males.
https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Lepus_nigricollis/

Lepus califomicus - In Kansas, sexual dimorphism exists in mass and length of adults; females are larger than males. As the breeding season begins, difference in mass between sexes increases until a maximum is reached in mid-summer. Toward the end of the breeding season in late summer, males begin to gain mass and females to lose mass. After the breeding season, mass is nearly the same for both sexes.
https://watermark.silverchair.com/53...1BebEH_JJ164RA

Lepus timidus / Mountain hare - Females tend to be larger than males.
http://wildpro.twycrosszoo.org/S/0ML...us_timidus.htm

Ah, but they're described as hares in the game Senn, not rabbits. Even the dictionary term for leporine means Hare rather than a rabbit.
leporine
/ˈlɛpərʌɪn/
adjective
of or resembling a hare or hares.
I suppose it will also depend on which 'hare' they're going after, as it doesn't seem to be overly common as there are multiple breeds of hares that do not have this. Or those writing the articles find that the differences between them are not something that is worth mentioning, while with rabbits it's a lot more clear. A 0.3 KG difference is more akin to 'weight' rather than height. Males burn off more than the females, female mammals also retain fat more - this is seen throughout the biology of all mammals, though males tend to be bigger in both muscle mass and just genuine 'unit size'.

As seen here Brown Hare Information Which talks about dimorphism, but it's less than 5% and is regarding their weight, not overall size.

To clarify, jackrabbits are hares, even if it includes the word "rabbit" in the name.

"Jackrabbits are actually hares, not rabbits."
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/a...ed-jackrabbit/

Lepus timidus go by many other alternative names such as mountain hare, arctic hare, snow hare, jackrabbit, and so on.

Aye, I figured as much - but I feel the need to drive home they're not rabbits but Hares, haha. I am curious on which hare the Viera are based off of. Or did they just take the simple idea of the 'Hare' and leave it at that. Either way the tiny weight difference between them should be nothing to get excited about.

[Senn]

Ah, but they're described as hares in the game Senn, not rabbits. I suppose it will also depend on which 'hare' they're going after, as it doesn't seem to be overly common as there are multiple breeds of hares that do not have this.

To clarify, jackrabbits are hares, even if it includes the word "rabbit" in the name.

"Jackrabbits are actually hares, not rabbits."
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/a...ed-jackrabbit/

Lepus timidus go by many other alternative names such as mountain hare, arctic hare, snow hare, jackrabbit, and so on.

As seen here Brown Hare Information Which talks about dimorphism, but it's less than 5% and is regarding their weight, not overall size.

From this source, "Female brown hares are generally 10% heavier than males weighing in at up to 3.5 kg."
http://www.conserveireland.com/mammals/brown-hare.php

In most species of Lepus/hares I have searched about so far, the females tend to be either larger and/or heavier.

Lepus timidus, or jackrabbits... or arctic hare... or mountain hare... or snow hare... Whatever you want to call them, these are really general types of hares, and it is confirmed that the females do tend to be larger.

edit:
I know we were talking about hares, but I want to add some information on rabbits as well.

Female rabbits are bigger and also weigh more than male rabbits.
"Female bunnies are also bigger and heavier than males of the same species when fully mature."
https://www.cuteness.com/article/dif...female-rabbits

[Gwenorai]

Snip

Yes, in weight. Which makes sense. All this argument puts forward is that the females are fatter than the males. Do they say anything regarding the differences in skeleton structure? This is where the height comes from. If the skeletons are the same in size then they are of the same height. If there's a huge difference in skeletal size and/or length, then the females are also taller/bigger than the males - not just fatter. Fat retention has zero barings on height. Unless you want the females to be wider than the males and the males to be skinnier in regards to Viera. If they do have larger skeletons then it's all good and the argument stands, but I would still say it's a dimorphism that doesn't need to be added.

We don't tend to judge peoples height from their weight.

[Senn]

...

It should come as no surprise finding any information on this is extremely difficult. It's definitely a specialized field. Like with most mammals, female and male hares do have skeletal structures that are slightly different, and it wouldn't be shocking to learn if the female hare skeletal structure was slightly bigger to accommodate for birthing litters. I could be wrong, but I really don't care to do too much research on it.

What people can take away from this is that female rabbits and hares tend to be bigger than their male counterparts. Whether this means that the female skeletal structure is bigger or not I cannot confirm or deny.

edit:
Here are more sources confirming female rabbits and hares are larger than their male counterparts.
"Rabbits and hares are unusual among mammals because females tend to be larger than males."
http://www.biokids.umich.edu/critters/Leporidae/

"Adult females are larger than males."
https://kars.ku.edu/media/kufs/libre...us-t-camp.html

I believe they are referring to the size of the female hares and rabbits, not just their weight.

I suspected female hares and rabbits are bigger because they give birth to litters, and I saw other posts online that suggest this may actually be a valid reason. There would be complications with birthing if male hares were bigger. However, these posts were just from commenters. If I find a better source, I will post it. I don't see a reason to be so skeptical of this as it makes sense, and is true of rabbits.

edit:

I said I didn't care to do much research on it, but here's what I found.

-Three of the cranial measurements displayed significant sexual dimorphism females > males
-width of incisive foramina females > males
-height of mandibular ramus females > males
-length of articular condyle females > males
-Length of mandibular diastema females > males

"In all instances, females were larger than males. "

I don't understand a lot of these terms, but these are all skeletal structures of Lagomorpha: Leporidae: Sylvilagus.
https://academic.oup.com/jmammal/art...4/1042/3828752

Here's another source
"Adult head and body length ranges from 250 to 700 mm. Unlike most mammals, females are usually larger than males."
"Female leporids are larger than males, an unusual condition among mammals."
"Females are larger than males in most species, which is unusual in mammals, and are able to reproduce before males."
https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Leporidae/

"Unlike many other mammals, female leporids are usually larger than males."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics...nces/leporidae

I think this confirms that female hares are generally bigger in size than males, and also weigh more.

edit: hit post limit

...

Although I could only find information on the size of their skulls, you could deduce the one with the bigger skull would have the bigger body/bigger bones, especially when you pair this information with other sources stating female hares are generally bigger than male hares of the same species. Like some of the articles mentioned, it is a bit unusual in mammals for the females to be larger than males, but Leporidae seem to be an exception to this.

Now, back to viera... Whether or not they make the males taller or shorter than the females isn't a big deal to me. If male viera are going to be based heavily off hares, then they would be shorter. If they are only loosely based off of hares, then who knows. If you ask for my honest opinion, I speculate the males would be around the same height or a little taller than the females, like with male/female elezen.

Personally, I would like to see male viera be around the same height as female viera, with the height slider allowing us to be shorter than female viera or taller if we please.

Not worth going on or adapting into the race honestly, though if it did it would make some folks happy for males to be taller than females if they wished to be, but also smaller than them in regards to the minimum height.

I think this would be a good compromise. Let people have the option to make their male viera shorter than female viera, but also allow people to make them taller as well.

[Gwenorai]

It should come as no surprise finding any information on this is extremely difficult. It's definitely a specialized field. Like with most mammals, female and male hares do have skeletal structures that are slightly different, and it wouldn't be shocking to learn if the female hare skeletal structure was slightly bigger to accommodate for birthing litters. I could be wrong, but I really don't care to do too much research on it.

What people can take away from this is that female rabbits and hares tend to be bigger than their male counterparts. Whether this means that the female skeletal structure is bigger or not I cannot confirm or deny.

Haha, I feel you! Honestly wouldn't surprise me if the creators of Viera were just the same. It's not worth the hassle!

[Gwenorai]

Snip

Aye, this confirms that their heads are a lot bigger, more their jaw. It's the adult body length that would be the one we're looking for. Which they do say they are 'usually' larger. So, even if we took this. And they were to use it as a baseline, which they probably won't, then the male's height scale would dip below the average female, but some would also be taller. Looking at parts of papers - which weren't that informative to be honest - this just brings me to the conclusion that males have a larger size range than the females.

Not worth going on or adapting into the race honestly, though if it did it would make some folks happy for males to be taller than females if they wished to be, but also smaller than them in regards to the minimum height.