My personal headcanon is that fluffies are designed not to be able to really hurt humans, because they were mostly designed for little kids.
58 Likes
SAME!
8 Likes
This is universally accepted and agreed to
10 Likes
What to do when a smarty threaten you; show it that it’s completly powerless against you.
Love it
8 Likes
Universally is a bit too strong - widely accepted is more accurate.
@Rudys_Carer I do like this approach, but I also feel that fluffies that are this “weak” would not be capable of some of the more “hellgremlinish” traits certain people like to attribute to them. Its part of the reason why I have accept some canons have them as being this weak (in canons where they are more toyetic), and some canons give them more strength (mainly the ones where they’re animals marketed as toys)
4 Likes
Effin finally someone says it. I don’t get why so many headcannons have fluffs that can kill and maim each other when they were designed to be toys for children. Imagine two Pomeranians getting a scuffle and all that’s left is fur, blood, and entrails. Fluffs are not tougher than dogs.
7 Likes
I’m in the mind that it’s somewhere between the two sides. Definitely strong enough to hurt or even in very extreme circumstances kill each other . But other then the most unlikely of circumstances hurt/maim a human unless say a baby.
4 Likes
I remember Marcusmaximus once did a picture of two fluffies fighting each other and their hits only being effective as a bunch of marshmallows.
Fluffies of this strength shouldn’t be capable of harming each other, let alone be capable of stompies or what have you. Its one of my main problems with some of the more abuse-ish canons, which claim theya re so weak, but then prolong their abuse by giving them unusual endurance despite said weaker strength.
~
I tend not to think of fluffies as toys for children mainly because of their origin, both in-universe and the fandom it spawned from. Granted some canons have them as toyetic and thus made for children, which I willing exploire but, if I go for a “animals marketed as biotoys” canon, I would approach them as having a bit more strength and durability, based on the idea that adults may actually want to buy them. (that kind of approach is different from assume they’re “kid-only”)
~
Ultimately, it boils down to the story I want to tell or read, and I don’t want to assume all canons are applicable. For instance, if I want to enjoy a Marcusmaximus picture (who approaches fluffies in a cutesy hugbox manner,) I’d definitely would be okay with them being a lot weaker and less durable, as per Marcus’s intention. But if I’m reading something like Fluffus’s Star or FDL’s Plum, I sure as hell don’t want to see them as weak.
4 Likes
Love your design keep it up 
3 Likes
Indeed, a very central part of fluffy lore. Their complete helplessness not only makes sense from design perspective, but is what makes dealing with even the most furious of fluffies completely harmless fun. 
1 Like
When your fluffy behave badly, you should punish him/her. Otherwise it gonna behave itself like a brad and think it’s normal to do those actions.
My dyslexia ass read that as a “bard” and I was confused as to how a fluffy was gonna use a lute to seduce the reven queen
Hahahaha hilarious! Also good question for a concept story a fluffy bard.
“Fwuffy woww tu sedewse da dwagon”
nat 1
Fwuffy make bad poopeh on da dwagon
3 Likes