Both sides make good arguments as to why they are right and the other is wrong. But who is really correct?
THE QUESTIONNAIRES
To help answer this daunting matter I sent out questionnaires to group of the titans to try to discover their motivations. The questions focused on the following general topics:
� A macro�s general opinion of little people/furs
� Whether macros intentionally cause harm to little people/furs
� What macros prefer to feed on
� Whether or not macros would protect little people/furs
In all 15 questionnaires were sent out via PM from all three major macro forums; www.macrophile.com, www.lofty-bearing.org, and www.bigfurs.com
Two versions of the questionnaire were made, one for violent macros and one for non-violent macros. If the macro�s preference was unknown, or he/she seemed to be a mix, then both sets of questions were sent. The question wording varied for each version of the questionnaire depending on whether the macro was known to be violent or not. However both versions covered the same four basic topics above.
After allowing a week to reply, 9 macros returned the questionnaires. Some of the responses were predictable while others were quite surprising. This is what I found out:
PEOPLE OR PESTS�
My first topic was what macros thought in general of these little beings at their feet. The answers varied widely, one of the surprises in this survey. However the first response received was actually quite expected�
ROGUE �They're little more than insects. They exist solely as a source of nourishment and as a source of amusement.�
I was actually expecting to here a lot replies like this but didn�t. As a matter of a fact, a more common reply was that they are generally ignored unless something is done to warrant attention. However some took a stronger interest in the fate of little ones�
ChaosFactor "Littlefurs are important to the world, just like all other life. Killing them en masse is sacrilege unto itself, unless it is to protect many more."
This was a common theme among the non-violent macros. They seemed to believe that the people at their feet weren�t merely pests but beings that deserved to live also. Some even expressed deep concern for their well-being.
Overall the general opinions of little people/furs varied from pests, to something to be ignored, to sentient beings that deserved respect. However these were just the general opinions...
TO STOMP OR NOT TO STOMP�
The next topic addressed violence directed at little people/furs. This topic focused on acts that would injure or kill a person but had nothing to do with feeding. One of the interesting discoveries with this topic was even if a macro didn�t rampage on purpose most of the violent ones seemed to enjoy it in one way or another. Here go the three questions I used to query the violent:
(Question: Do you step on little people/furs on purpose? If yes, why?)
Rachel �Yep. Like I'm going to waste my time picking a path through them. Its pretty satisfying too. After a bad business day there's nothing quite like getting home and wiping them off, knowing they've had a worse day than you...�
(Question: If you stomp on little people/furs, do you enjoy it? If yes, why?)
Hera (aka Talaminia) �Oh yes, I love the feeling of their flesh between my toes, grinding their bones down to a pulp. But sadly, I do feel sorry for them afterwords. After all, they can't help that their smaller than me. I really try to control myself.�
(Question: Do you have any other preferred methods of wreaking havoc on little people/furs?)
Nikita �*giggles* I once put someone in my (beeped)�
Now Nikita wasn�t the only macro to indicate that she did something, AKHEM, intimate with little people. However most of these macros derived some sort of pleasure out of stepping on little people/furs. Some even said trampling little ones felt good to their paws.
What about the non-violent ones? Would they ever harm little ones? These are the questions I asked to find out�
(Question: Do you go out of your way to not harm little people/furs? If yes, how far would you go to prevent them from being harmed?)
Draconder �I do not wish to harm people and furs. I would defend myself against any deliberate attacks to me. If I had the chance to escape then I would simply back away and fly off. I would use my claws and fire to defend myself with, I wouldn�t use my wings.�
(Question: Would you ever intentionally harm little people/furs? If yes, under what circumstances?)
Heartwing �I have, and would again. Though I don't take any pleasure in harming those smaller or weaker than myself, I have hunted and even killed them. One particular fur decided that kidnapping and abusing young furs was something fun. I tracked him down and brought his games to an end.�
Although most of the non-violent macros indicated that they would not normally harm little people, there were circumstances that seemed to be enough to provoke them. A typical justification would be going after those who deserved to die for committing some terrible act.
WHAT�S THERE TO EAT AROUND HERE�
This was another topic that bared some surprising responses. Out of all the macros that replied, only one chose little people/furs as a preferred food choice. As a matter of a fact, livestock and marine life were the overwhelming food of choice for those of extraordinary size. But there was one wolf who specified some interesting tastes when asked if he ate people�
Inuyasha (aka Inuyasha192) �I don't really eat them, I eat their clothes...I need the fibers....cars and trucks for the minerals and steel beams at times for iron....seriously, I eat awkward things. At times I may eat cattle and seafood...such as whales and dolphins.�
I�ll have to remember to keep a close eye on my new car when Inuyasha is around.
HELP ME�
So if you�re in trouble can you expect a macro to come to your rescue? Well maybe one�
Kahn �I would do whatever is necessary to protect them, even if it involved violence.�
However not all the non-violent macros indicated that they would do anything to protect little ones. Most of them would take some action but specified limits. Others preferred not to get involved in a conflict unless absolutely necessary.
Surprisingly even the violent macros had little ones they�d protect. When I asked the most violent of them all if he would protect any little furs this was what he had to say�
ROGUE �That depends. There's a few that I like for one reason or another. I'd defend them, yeah, but I'm not going to get myself into a scrape for them. I can always find new toys.�
It should be noted that after the interview ROGUE did try to step on me. Guess I�m not going to have any megawolfs protecting me anytime soon.
CONCLUSIONS
So should macros be predominately violent or gentle? The conclusion that I�ve come to is that neither of these views is all-inclusive or should be. Simply put macros, like people, have their own personalities. Some are down right evil, others are totally non-violent, but the majority seems to be more of a mix.
So if you are of �normal� size don�t assume that giant wolf is out to squish you. He may just be looking for a nice Chevy to snack on.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The quotes in this article are copyrighted to the macro�s respective players and have been used with permission. Any reposting of this article without the consent of all concerned parties is strictly prohibited.
I would like to thank all of the macros that took the time to participate in this article. A special thanks goes out to Kahn who contacted me via email when my mailbox at Lofty was full. Also I would like to thank Cheator for giving me the idea to write an article back when he was an admin at Lofty.