My two D&D characters with any real play behind them are a pacifistic half-orc evangelist, and a minute-but-murderous brownie who thinks he's the Tarrasque/ the Tarrasque twisted by powerful magics into a pitiful mortal frame.
So it's pretty much me in my off time and work hours. I don't have to get too creative with the role playing.

So, hypothetically, for reasons, say moonfolk weren't associated with blue.
What color/geography would probably suit them?

I have a first instinct, but I want to see what everyone else has to say.

Red. High mountain peaks, separate from the world below, close to the heavens.

Just my first instinct. White could also work, but red's had moon stuff since Alpha.

I feel like the red/moon connection's a bit of a holdover. Bad moon tells us that the moon is a creepy black sphere, but we don't see a lot of references to Bad Moon to reinforce the connection. *grumble* White cats *grumble*
Rabbits could easily be green as animals, but as docile, almost-domestic herbivores (and on Kamigawa, highly organized herbivors) white is likely the best fit.

The problem with that approach is that it assumes the cultural touchstone used in Kamigawa, the rabbits to moon connection, is the most central conceit to Moonfolk.
If, for example, there were Moonfolk on Innistrad... they would be associated with birds.

I assumed "moonfolk" was being used as a term for the rabbit people of Kamigawa and the discussion was about Kamigawan-style rabbit people on other planes.
Getting further of topic, but rabbit folk without the moon connection would probably be green with a token focus. Maybe with a "tap any 2 nontoken rabbits to get a 1/1 token" theme.

Not that I've been part of this discussion, but I had very much the same understanding that TPmanW did: you were asking about what rabbit-folk would be, if they weren't blue. I've been looking at Salvation's page on races often enough that I know it very clearly labels Moonfolk as "rabbit-folk," so without any other context for the question, it seemed very much like that's what you were asking. Magic doesn't really have another lagomorph race, and since moonfolk have not shown up again, I think it's fair to expect that people make that assumption when you ask about them.

The conundrum involved there is assuming rabbit and moon mean the same thing, which while it IS functionally our only data point, does not accurately translate. I just feel like 'moonfolk' is a sufficiently divorced concept that it could effectively carry a concept on its own: A race associated with the moon or sky.

Right, I'm just saying you should have put it out there first to be clear, instead of letting someone make a suggestion based on the misunderstanding.

It might also be an interesting discussion point to bring up alternative designs for moonfolk, in that case. Like, we have the canonical rabbit-style because Kamigawa was based on Eastern mythology, but what alternatives to that are there? Wikipedia has a very small list of animals associated with the moon, but it includes the obvious werewolf (which poses design problems of its own) and a were-jaguar from Olmec mythology (which may not have much to do with the moon? idk the specific page doesn't reference the moon but gives a connection to the rain). There are also various myths of animals eating the moon, such as Fenrir (wolf, again), the black dog Tiangou of Chinese mythology, the serpent Bakunawa of Phillippine mythology, or other creatures associated with eclipses.

The main "problem" -- if the problem is specifically needing an animal-like humanoid to be moonfolk -- is that most lunar deities seem to have been human or something close to it, rather than animalistic.

Perhaps the basis of "moonfolk" should be Grays, colored in locally? Soratami do have wide dark eyes, thin frames, and large heads? (not entirely serious here)

A brief reminder that my character Zhiran is, in fact, a moonfolk.
An enlightened ancient ascetic scholar from a sky city that now abducts promising students to study in an alternate world.

Like if you combined Buddha with the Greys.

The famous Gruddha, you mean.

Personally, I've never been a fan of Grays, at least in their stereotypical ways (with a notable exception being the aliens from the movie Independence Day). I'm all for "otherworldly beauty" and all that, but most of the time humanoid aliens are just kinda... dumb. Mind you, that's because most sci-fi tries to have a thin veneer of "realism" to it, unlike a lot of fantasy which just kind of throws that out and says, "yeah, humanoid forms are just kinda the normal thing, it's magic."


I don't think I camembert seeing that name before. He sounds sharp, though.

As I dwell on it, a good example of what moonfolk could mean would be akin to the Lunarians of Land of the Lustrous

Oooh, yeah! That's a marvellous example.

I have a serious question, which I've been afraid to ask up to this point, but I really should.

I am genuinely worried right now about the world I want to build, because the direction I want to go in is to at the very least allow (though the chance for me writing it is as close to zero as having no odds) for some NSFW things to go on in it with my favorite races — and yes, this is about the world(s) I've been hammering at in the other thread of mine. My issue with it, what I'm most worried about, is that, while I'm not so far gone as to let it go to just being a world of monster girls, I am well aware that there are already too many men's sexy fantasy worlds in existence, and I feel like I shouldn't be adding to that.

I guess my question is twofold, really: 1. do others think that it's worth me actually developing the world out (whether for the M:EM or not)? and 2. if the project is something worth including in our group, how explicit should the details be?

I've been meaning to get to your worldbuilding thread. It's just hard to dive into a long thread I expect would be pretty dense with info right now. Doubly so because I'd want to read the whole thing so I don't fall behind in the discussion.
Anyhoo,
You shouldn't worry about creating a world with potential to support something you find objectionable. Realistically, any heavily-developed setting has room for some pretty dark stuff. I mean, just look at the real world- it literally contains the breadth of all fictional worlds and there's plenty of nightmarish stuff happening in real life right now.
whether other people are doing something similar and whether or not they are doing it the right way shouldn't concern you when you make a setting. So what if there are similar settings? Or if they use them to fulfill a juvenile desire in a slapdash manner? They're not you, I doubt they're going to abuse your setting. Those people, what they did, what it means and what other people think of them and what they did and what it means? They don't matter.
As a non-voting non-M:EMber, I don't really care how explicit anything in the M:EM gets. But that's just my 1 cent.

It cuts us down, as a culture, to stigmatize sex as the puritanical ancestors did. Sex is not evil, and even the idea of things like objectification* is rooted in perpetuating the idea that we should be ashamed.

*Objectification is not something I endorse, to reduce another individual into a thing, but it's unfair to approach it with the double standards modern society wants to.

1 It's as worth as you think it is. Maybe not the answer you wanted, sorry.
2 Not surprisingly for me, I have outright stated there are regular scalie orgies in Thamirelk. I'd just put things about sexuality and similar topics in appropriately named spoilers and let the readers beware.

The modern notion of "objectification" really bugs me. A CEO might treat their employees as the "objects that do the thing (for which I am sadly obligated to compensate them)" but nobody would use the term "objectification" here. It's just a sex thing. And it's assumed to be the case whenever anyone is seen in a sexual way. It's rooted in the notion that sex is a form of male on female predation which is objectionable for several reasons.* ** *** **** *****
It's a paradigm that seriously bugs me. And somehow the counter response is still rooted in the same twisted culture. WTF?

*Cutting out anything not male on female
**Taking female agency out of the equation
***Normalizing sexually abusive behavior
****Reducing intimacy to a power game
*****I could really go on.******

******Believe me I could.