Nudism in SF


General Discussion

101 to 150 of 274 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Azalah wrote:
So who's to say there wouldn't be groups that would embrace their artificial side over their organic side, and just forgo clothing?

*headscratch*

When you talk about any group as large as an entire species like androids or shirren, you're talking about the general trend of a population, not every individual or subset. When someone says "Shirren are choice obsessed" what that parses to "shirren as a species are far more likely than other races to be choice obsessed" not that "EVERY shirren is choice obsessed"

So there very well could be individual androids or a group or a machinist movement that think clothes are the tools of the oppressors and run around naked. I didn't say that there weren't. I can just see why the species as a whole would be more concerned about PR than others.

I wasn't talking about species as a whole. I've always been referring to groups or individuals within that species.


Like one poster before said, it would come up exactly as often as clothing does in your campaign at all. In my campaigns, it usually only comes up in specific social situations, like attending the fancy dinner or going undercover. And then it would be the same level as discussion as with the scruffy nerf herder going to the Captains Dinner or the fashionista icon being asked to go undercover as Norman T. Average.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ouachitonian wrote:
Since androids are by nature essentially asexual, it seems like they'd have no need for "modesty". Unless specifically built to resemble another race they probably don't even have sex organs to cover. So, as long as they're in an environment that's at a comfortable temperature (which might be a much greater range for them than for humans), there's little reason for them to wear anything (well, except armor in combat). This would be even more true for more overtly mechanical beings, and perhaps for cyborgs of other races to greater or lesser degrees.

Ummm....I might be incorrect but I'm pretty sure your wrong on this.

Androids are completely anatomically correct, they simply can't reproduce. They're not Ken or Barbie dolls, but those organs don't function for reproduction.

Androids are more like Blade Runner's replicant's than Data.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yup.:

"Sexual dimorphism and behavior
Androids exhibit the same physical sexual dimorphism of humans and enjoy sexual intercourse, though they cannot reproduce through it. Androids in the form of children are exceedingly rare, having been designed solely for the purpose of simulating child rearing for parents incapable of reproducing."

No Ken dolls here


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Azalah wrote:
WhiteWeasel wrote:
For my Ysoki icon, I found a compromise by wearing skin-color second skin. Sure, I might look like a featureless barbie doll, but hey, I'm sure my fellow party members are glad about that.
A bald-looking Ysoki probably wouldn't look too good. I don't know if you've ever seen a shaved rat before, but they don't exactly look Icon-worthy. And I tend to love rats.

I think you just need a high Charisma to pull it off.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hairless rats and naked mole rats take offense to the implication that naked rats are not attractive! According to Scrumin Hull-Biter, Ysoki salvager, bald is beautiful, plus, weird space oil and such washes of skin much easier than out of fur. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM_Beernorg wrote:
Hairless rats and naked mole rats take offense to the implication that naked rats are not attractive! According to Scrumin Hull-Biter, Ysoki salvager, bald is beautiful, plus, weird space oil and such washes of skin much easier than out of fur. ;)

Hair regrowth being a multi-billion credit industry proves him wrong.


Claxon wrote:
Ouachitonian wrote:
Since androids are by nature essentially asexual, it seems like they'd have no need for "modesty". Unless specifically built to resemble another race they probably don't even have sex organs to cover. So, as long as they're in an environment that's at a comfortable temperature (which might be a much greater range for them than for humans), there's little reason for them to wear anything (well, except armor in combat). This would be even more true for more overtly mechanical beings, and perhaps for cyborgs of other races to greater or lesser degrees.

Ummm....I might be incorrect but I'm pretty sure your wrong on this.

Androids are completely anatomically correct, they simply can't reproduce. They're not Ken or Barbie dolls, but those organs don't function for reproduction.

Androids are more like Blade Runner's replicant's than Data.

Huh. Shows what I know. Thanks for the correction.


LOL Azalah!


Ouachitonian wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Ouachitonian wrote:
Since androids are by nature essentially asexual, it seems like they'd have no need for "modesty". Unless specifically built to resemble another race they probably don't even have sex organs to cover. So, as long as they're in an environment that's at a comfortable temperature (which might be a much greater range for them than for humans), there's little reason for them to wear anything (well, except armor in combat). This would be even more true for more overtly mechanical beings, and perhaps for cyborgs of other races to greater or lesser degrees.

Ummm....I might be incorrect but I'm pretty sure your wrong on this.

Androids are completely anatomically correct, they simply can't reproduce. They're not Ken or Barbie dolls, but those organs don't function for reproduction.

Androids are more like Blade Runner's replicant's than Data.

Huh. Shows what I know. Thanks for the correction.

To be fair, it seems like the serum of sex change would have the ability to turn an android, or a member of any race, into a ken/barbie.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Azalah wrote:
GM_Beernorg wrote:
Hairless rats and naked mole rats take offense to the implication that naked rats are not attractive! According to Scrumin Hull-Biter, Ysoki salvager, bald is beautiful, plus, weird space oil and such washes of skin much easier than out of fur. ;)
Hair regrowth being a multi-billion credit industry proves him wrong.

And for ysoki (and other humanoids) who prefer the non-hairless route, RyskCo® Bioware™ also offers a range of totally organic ChiaHair™ and ChiaFur™ products.


Claxon wrote:
Ouachitonian wrote:
Since androids are by nature essentially asexual, it seems like they'd have no need for "modesty". Unless specifically built to resemble another race they probably don't even have sex organs to cover. So, as long as they're in an environment that's at a comfortable temperature (which might be a much greater range for them than for humans), there's little reason for them to wear anything (well, except armor in combat). This would be even more true for more overtly mechanical beings, and perhaps for cyborgs of other races to greater or lesser degrees.

Ummm....I might be incorrect but I'm pretty sure your wrong on this.

Androids are completely anatomically correct, they simply can't reproduce. They're not Ken or Barbie dolls, but those organs don't function for reproduction.

Androids are more like Blade Runner's replicant's than Data.

Data isn't a Ken doll either, and it's hard to tell he isn't organic with a mere glance unless he is damaged.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Souls At War wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Ouachitonian wrote:
Since androids are by nature essentially asexual, it seems like they'd have no need for "modesty". Unless specifically built to resemble another race they probably don't even have sex organs to cover. So, as long as they're in an environment that's at a comfortable temperature (which might be a much greater range for them than for humans), there's little reason for them to wear anything (well, except armor in combat). This would be even more true for more overtly mechanical beings, and perhaps for cyborgs of other races to greater or lesser degrees.

Ummm....I might be incorrect but I'm pretty sure your wrong on this.

Androids are completely anatomically correct, they simply can't reproduce. They're not Ken or Barbie dolls, but those organs don't function for reproduction.

Androids are more like Blade Runner's replicant's than Data.

Data isn't a Ken doll either, and it's hard to tell he isn't organic with a mere glance unless he is damaged.

IIRC, he's "fully functional".


Souls At War wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Ouachitonian wrote:
Since androids are by nature essentially asexual, it seems like they'd have no need for "modesty". Unless specifically built to resemble another race they probably don't even have sex organs to cover. So, as long as they're in an environment that's at a comfortable temperature (which might be a much greater range for them than for humans), there's little reason for them to wear anything (well, except armor in combat). This would be even more true for more overtly mechanical beings, and perhaps for cyborgs of other races to greater or lesser degrees.

Ummm....I might be incorrect but I'm pretty sure your wrong on this.

Androids are completely anatomically correct, they simply can't reproduce. They're not Ken or Barbie dolls, but those organs don't function for reproduction.

Androids are more like Blade Runner's replicant's than Data.

Data isn't a Ken doll either, and it's hard to tell he isn't organic with a mere glance unless he is damaged.

I didn't say Data didn't have functional parts, it's actually noted form his "relationship" with Tasha Yar that he most definitely does. I was just saying, Androids are closer to Replicants (synthetically engineered people with organic materials grown) rather than a mechanical/cybernetic robot.

As to whether or not it's obvious data isn't human....well I always thought it was obvious, at least to other humans. But I could see other species not recognizing the differences easily.


Claxon wrote:
Souls At War wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Ouachitonian wrote:
Since androids are by nature essentially asexual, it seems like they'd have no need for "modesty". Unless specifically built to resemble another race they probably don't even have sex organs to cover. So, as long as they're in an environment that's at a comfortable temperature (which might be a much greater range for them than for humans), there's little reason for them to wear anything (well, except armor in combat). This would be even more true for more overtly mechanical beings, and perhaps for cyborgs of other races to greater or lesser degrees.

Ummm....I might be incorrect but I'm pretty sure your wrong on this.

Androids are completely anatomically correct, they simply can't reproduce. They're not Ken or Barbie dolls, but those organs don't function for reproduction.

Androids are more like Blade Runner's replicant's than Data.

Data isn't a Ken doll either, and it's hard to tell he isn't organic with a mere glance unless he is damaged.

I didn't say Data didn't have functional parts, it's actually noted form his "relationship" with Tasha Yar that he most definitely does. I was just saying, Androids are closer to Replicants (synthetically engineered people with organic materials grown) rather than a mechanical/cybernetic robot.

As to whether or not it's obvious data isn't human....well I always thought it was obvious, at least to other humans. But I could see other species not recognizing the differences easily.

He has systems that mimic having a pulse and blood pressure, among other things, and him not being human isn't that obvious to "primitive" people.


"While the first androids are believed to have been mostly biological, difficult to distinguish from the humans they lived among, Modern designs are more varied, and many favor metal skeletons and processors that support synthetic organs and living flesh."

Androids also don't need to breath, and can handle being in a vacuum. They also have tattoo-like circuits that glow.

So they clearly have mechanical parts that keep the organic parts alive.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Mark Thomas 66 wrote:

Yup.:

"Sexual dimorphism and behavior Androids exhibit the same physical sexual dimorphism of humans and enjoy sexual intercourse, though they cannot reproduce through it. Androids in the form of children are exceedingly rare, having been designed solely for the purpose of simulating child rearing for parents incapable of reproducing."

No Ken dolls here

That is a Pathfinder citation. While Pathfinder Androids may have the same name we know they are not exactly the same. One example of this difference is the fact that Pathfinder Androids need to breath.

Inner Sea Races, page 164 wrote:
They breathe and eat using artificial structures designed to mimic human anatomy.

Which Starfinder tells us explicitly they do not.

Starfinder Core Rulebook, page 42 wrote:
In addition, androids do not breathe or suffer the normal environmental effects of being in a vacuum.

In fact, we know that Androids do not have exact sexual dimorphism in Starfinder.

Starfinder Core Rulebook, page 43 wrote:
...but as constructed beings they do not reproduce in the human fashion and have no biological need for gender—some identify strongly as male or female, while others shift fluidly or ignore it altogether, and still others actively reject it on philosophical grounds as a relic of their former slavery.

What exactly this means for anatomy isn't entirely clear.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Shaudius wrote:

What exactly this means for anatomy isn't entirely clear.

I take it to mean that they can have and use normal genitals, they don't need to have them, and can have both, either, or neither on a regular basis.

I have one Android character in mind whose body used to be something of a custom "pleasure model," but is currently inhabited by a very devout Priest of Triune. So it has rejected normal sexuality and gender in favor of mechanical "purity."


Azalah wrote:

"While the first androids are believed to have been mostly biological, difficult to distinguish from the humans they lived among, Modern designs are more varied, and many favor metal skeletons and processors that support synthetic organs and living flesh."

Androids also don't need to breath, and can handle being in a vacuum. They also have tattoo-like circuits that glow.

So they clearly have mechanical parts that keep the organic parts alive.

Right.

Again, I said (paraphrasing) "closer to Replicants than Data", which is true. Starfinder/Pathfinder Androids are primarily biological constructs. The Pathfinder version were seemly (almost) completely so while the Starfinder version seem to have modified themselves some to make themselves more mechanical in nature. But it seems to me the sort of stuff humans would do to ourselves if we could, like replacing on skeleton with an unbreakable metal one. Or installing sensor or other equipment in our own bodies to improve their functions. In fact, we already do that sort of stuff.

My main point here is that people read Android and far to often think of something like Data, Cylons (the originals) or Ava (from Ex Machina) rather than Cylons (2004 version), or Replicants.

Perhaps the most accurate comparison might be to the "Hosts" from Westworld, but lacking the interface to have their mind adjusted.


Claxon wrote:
Azalah wrote:

"While the first androids are believed to have been mostly biological, difficult to distinguish from the humans they lived among, Modern designs are more varied, and many favor metal skeletons and processors that support synthetic organs and living flesh."

Androids also don't need to breath, and can handle being in a vacuum. They also have tattoo-like circuits that glow.

So they clearly have mechanical parts that keep the organic parts alive.

Right.

Again, I said (paraphrasing) "closer to Replicants than Data", which is true. Starfinder/Pathfinder Androids are primarily biological constructs. The Pathfinder version were seemly (almost) completely so while the Starfinder version seem to have modified themselves some to make themselves more mechanical in nature. But it seems to me the sort of stuff humans would do to ourselves if we could, like replacing on skeleton with an unbreakable metal one. Or installing sensor or other equipment in our own bodies to improve their functions. In fact, we already do that sort of stuff.

My main point here is that people read Android and far to often think of something like Data, Cylons (the originals) or Ava (from Ex Machina) rather than Cylons (2004 version), or Replicants.

Perhaps the most accurate comparison might be to the "Hosts" from Westworld, but lacking the interface to have their mind adjusted.

Is this the time to say that I don't like Star Trek?

Also, while I'm not sure how we got from discussing why some androids might forgo clothing to discussing the physiology of them, I do agree that comparing them to the Hosts from Westworld is indeed pretty accurate.


I think nudism in SF is up to each Gamemaster. Like most things. Starfinder's civilizations are definitely progressive, but it's up to the Gamemaster to decide if nudism does exist in their universe or not. Starfinder GMs have the last word on what goes into their games or not. Azalah's question can be answered in this way:
"It's up to the GM."


EltonJ wrote:

I think nudism in SF is up to each Gamemaster. Like most things. Starfinder's civilizations are definitely progressive, but it's up to the Gamemaster to decide if nudism does exist in their universe or not. Starfinder GMs have the last word on what goes into their games or not. Azalah's question can be answered in this way:

"It's up to the GM."

I mean, nudism most likely would exist in some form, just like it exists in today's time. My question wasn't really does it exist, but if it's legal.

Shadow Lodge

No pants no shoes no service?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Azalah wrote:
EltonJ wrote:

I think nudism in SF is up to each Gamemaster. Like most things. Starfinder's civilizations are definitely progressive, but it's up to the Gamemaster to decide if nudism does exist in their universe or not. Starfinder GMs have the last word on what goes into their games or not. Azalah's question can be answered in this way:

"It's up to the GM."
I mean, nudism most likely would exist in some form, just like it exists in today's time. My question wasn't really does it exist, but if it's legal.

The answer is pretty much the same though: Not specified in the setting, so up to the GM.

Realistically, the laws and customs are likely to vary from culture to culture and certainly from race to race. Even within a culture, the laws will likely need to be adapted for creatures of different races.

Even if there aren't laws, customs may enforce social consequences on those who violate local taboos.

In an artificial environment, one thing that will play a role is what the environment is set to - many real world clothing customs are strongly influenced by climate, though they are often then carried into other climates if the culture expands. Northern European clothing customs made little sense when they moved into the tropics, for example.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
No pants no shoes no service?

Tricky to apply to races without feet. Or legs.


Azalah wrote:
I mean, nudism most likely would exist in some form, just like it exists in today's time. My question wasn't really does it exist, but if it's legal.

It would be legal in my game.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
No pants no shoes no service?

In my games, Halflings still don't wear shoes most of the time. If armor can create a bubble around the head to protect the wearer from harmful stuff, I think it'd be a pretty easy thing to make that available for bare feet as well.


thejeff wrote:
Azalah wrote:
EltonJ wrote:

I think nudism in SF is up to each Gamemaster. Like most things. Starfinder's civilizations are definitely progressive, but it's up to the Gamemaster to decide if nudism does exist in their universe or not. Starfinder GMs have the last word on what goes into their games or not. Azalah's question can be answered in this way:

"It's up to the GM."
I mean, nudism most likely would exist in some form, just like it exists in today's time. My question wasn't really does it exist, but if it's legal.

The answer is pretty much the same though: Not specified in the setting, so up to the GM.

Realistically, the laws and customs are likely to vary from culture to culture and certainly from race to race. Even within a culture, the laws will likely need to be adapted for creatures of different races.

Even if there aren't laws, customs may enforce social consequences on those who violate local taboos.

In an artificial environment, one thing that will play a role is what the environment is set to - many real world clothing customs are strongly influenced by climate, though they are often then carried into other climates if the culture expands. Northern European clothing customs made little sense when they moved into the tropics, for example.

The closest thing we have to an authority on SF laws here is Mark Moreland, and in his words, "It seems like it'd make for some interesting roleplaying opportunities, especially if you go with the notion that, while not forbidden, nudism is not the norm among humanoid creatures (in the Pact Worlds). But if everyday folk don't bat an eye at a sentient slugbeast walking down a ship's corridor, I can't see why they'd be particularly put off by a person in an invisible jumpsuit."

So, while it would depend on the individual culture/ship captain/station leader, I take that to mean that on the whole, it's legal. Even if it might not be a social norm.

Effectively, I'd view it as a nude person walking around on Absalom Station would be like a goth guy walking around in a black makeup and stuff in a modern mall. Would get a few double-takes, maybe some whispers, but that's about it.


I have to be honest and say one thing that does bother me with the Starfinder setting is the level of acceptance and lack of antagonism that exist with "sentient slugbeasts". It just doesn't feel real to me, perhaps because our real world has so much divisiveness based on race, age, national, etc that I can't imagine the level of acceptance. Personally I would expect a lot more antagonism between Starfinder's races. I also don't like how accepting Pathfinder is in terms of races being comfortable with other races. I always feel like Elves, Dwarfs, Halfings, & Humans are too chummy.

Not that I don't want the world to be a friendlier place, it just doesn't seem particularly realistic to me.


Claxon wrote:

I have to be honest and say one thing that does bother me with the Starfinder setting is the level of acceptance and lack of antagonism that exist with "sentient slugbeasts". It just doesn't feel real to me, perhaps because our real world has so much divisiveness based on race, age, national, etc that I can't imagine the level of acceptance. Personally I would expect a lot more antagonism between Starfinder's races. I also don't like how accepting Pathfinder is in terms of races being comfortable with other races. I always feel like Elves, Dwarfs, Halfings, & Humans are too chummy.

Not that I don't want the world to be a friendlier place, it just doesn't seem particularly realistic to me.

I suppose that's because it is a fantasy thing. If I remember correctly, elves and dwarfs never really got along. Humans don't particularly like elves. And pretty much no race likes half-orcs.

Though, I personally HATE elves and dwarfs in nearly every setting, including Pathfinder and Starfinder. Those are the two races I would consider myself actually "racist" towards.

My two favorite races, however, are half-orcs and halflings. I've got a thing for orcs in general. I am usually the official orcish expert in my group.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's fantasy setting, it doesn't have to be "realistic".


Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
It's fantasy setting, it doesn't have to be "realistic".

Depends on who you talk to. Some of us want the Electric Universe mentioned in Starfinder.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:

I have to be honest and say one thing that does bother me with the Starfinder setting is the level of acceptance and lack of antagonism that exist with "sentient slugbeasts". It just doesn't feel real to me, perhaps because our real world has so much divisiveness based on race, age, national, etc that I can't imagine the level of acceptance. Personally I would expect a lot more antagonism between Starfinder's races. I also don't like how accepting Pathfinder is in terms of races being comfortable with other races. I always feel like Elves, Dwarfs, Halfings, & Humans are too chummy.

Not that I don't want the world to be a friendlier place, it just doesn't seem particularly realistic to me.

It's the basic tension in having a setting where players can play any of the races without being handicapped by "everyone else hates you". Sure, you could run a game where the various races had a lot more antagonism and didn't really live around each other or cooperate, but then your cool vesk character shows up at Absalom Station looking work and immediately gets hauled off to detention as a possible enemy spy.

Realistic? Sure. Fun? Not really.

Forcing everyone to deal with antagonism and such troubles anytime they're outside the areas their own race controls (if there are any such) often isn't fun. It can be, if that's what your group wants to play around with, but it's a problem as a default for the whole game.

Beyond that, "realistic" isn't a design goal. Even beyond magic existing, this is a high space opera universe and game. There should be a dozen weird looking species hanging out in every seedy bar or snooty cocktail party. The model here is Star Wars more than anything else.


EltonJ wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
It's fantasy setting, it doesn't have to be "realistic".
Depends on who you talk to. Some of us want the Electric Universe mentioned in Starfinder.

"Electric Universe"?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
EltonJ wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
It's fantasy setting, it doesn't have to be "realistic".
Depends on who you talk to. Some of us want the Electric Universe mentioned in Starfinder.

"Electric Universe"?

{whispers:} Electric Universe is a Schedule I hallucinogenic woo. I don't think they have a license to peddle it. Just smile and nod noncommittally to their gibberings until the cops arrive to bust them.


Spacecaptain Pillbug Lebowski wrote:
thejeff wrote:
EltonJ wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
It's fantasy setting, it doesn't have to be "realistic".
Depends on who you talk to. Some of us want the Electric Universe mentioned in Starfinder.

"Electric Universe"?

{whispers:} Electric Universe is a Schedule I hallucinogenic woo. I don't think they have a license to peddle it. Just smile and nod noncommittally to their gibberings until the cops arrive to bust them.

Although, in a setting where magic is a thing and walking around naked will get more looks than a sentient space-slug going down a corridor...


Spacecaptain Pillbug Lebowski wrote:
thejeff wrote:
EltonJ wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
It's fantasy setting, it doesn't have to be "realistic".
Depends on who you talk to. Some of us want the Electric Universe mentioned in Starfinder.

"Electric Universe"?

{whispers:} Electric Universe is a Schedule I hallucinogenic woo. I don't think they have a license to peddle it. Just smile and nod noncommittally to their gibberings until the cops arrive to bust them.

I'd read that as "we want the Electric universe that was mentioned in SF", rather than "we want the Electric Universe to be mentioned in Starfinder."

So I looked through the CRB and didn't see any mention of an Electric Universe, so was curious where it came in.

Now I've seen the other thread and realize what it is.
Still no idea what it's got to do with our discussion about nudism or even the realism of friendly relations between races.


thejeff wrote:
Spacecaptain Pillbug Lebowski wrote:
thejeff wrote:
EltonJ wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
It's fantasy setting, it doesn't have to be "realistic".
Depends on who you talk to. Some of us want the Electric Universe mentioned in Starfinder.

"Electric Universe"?

{whispers:} Electric Universe is a Schedule I hallucinogenic woo. I don't think they have a license to peddle it. Just smile and nod noncommittally to their gibberings until the cops arrive to bust them.

I'd read that as "we want the Electric universe that was mentioned in SF", rather than "we want the Electric Universe to be mentioned in Starfinder."

So I looked through the CRB and didn't see any mention of an Electric Universe, so was curious where it came in.

Now I've seen the other thread and realize what it is.
Still no idea what it's got to do with our discussion about nudism or even the realism of friendly relations between races.

I feel like my original question of how nudism would be received has been pretty universally answered in that it'd probably be legal, but weird for the majority of races that do wear clothing.

So really, unless anyone has anything more to add to that particular conversation, I don't really see what the point of anything else in this thread is.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
I have to be honest and say one thing that does bother me with the Starfinder setting is the level of acceptance and lack of antagonism that exist with "sentient slugbeasts".
Azalah wrote:
Although, in a setting where magic is a thing and walking around naked will get more looks than a sentient space-slug going down a corridor...

Zis preoccupation mitt zentient slugs und slugbeasts in a "Nudism zread" iss most interestingkt. You bozz schould make un appointment mitt mein AssistantBot at ze front desk.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Azalah wrote:
Spacecaptain Pillbug Lebowski wrote:
thejeff wrote:
EltonJ wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
It's fantasy setting, it doesn't have to be "realistic".
Depends on who you talk to. Some of us want the Electric Universe mentioned in Starfinder.

"Electric Universe"?

{whispers:} Electric Universe is a Schedule I hallucinogenic woo. I don't think they have a license to peddle it. Just smile and nod noncommittally to their gibberings until the cops arrive to bust them.
Although, in a setting where magic is a thing and walking around naked will get more looks than a sentient space-slug going down a corridor...

What?


Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
It's fantasy setting, it doesn't have to be "realistic".

Of course, no fantasy setting has to be "realistic". I hate that word. But of course, it's mostly sets the wrong frame of mind. I much prefer the word "believable" be used instead, as getting the reader to believe and accept the setting before them is far more important. Realistic is often just one of the tools to do that as you have to make less assumptions - or conversely, count on the reader having certain assumptions that you don't have to elaborate on.

Claxon wrote:

I have to be honest and say one thing that does bother me with the Starfinder setting is the level of acceptance and lack of antagonism that exist with "sentient slugbeasts". It just doesn't feel real to me, perhaps because our real world has so much divisiveness based on race, age, national, etc that I can't imagine the level of acceptance. Personally I would expect a lot more antagonism between Starfinder's races. I also don't like how accepting Pathfinder is in terms of races being comfortable with other races. I always feel like Elves, Dwarfs, Halfings, & Humans are too chummy.

Not that I don't want the world to be a friendlier place, it just doesn't seem particularly realistic to me.

I'm so-so on this. On one hand, I do feel the starfinder setting is a bit too sterile. It has that professional, squeaky clean feeling to it like Star Trek: The Next Generation or Fallout 4. And perhaps that was on purpose. But I feel the most interesting and compelling settings are the ones that adhere to the golden rule of writing: "Show, don't tell." ...and show evil rather than allude to it. Like Star Trek: Deep Space Nine or Fallout: New Vegas. Not that I'm suggesting a world should go the opposite direction, but rather not pull it's punches.

On the other hand, I find the likely hood of space antagonism based on species would be low in a mixed society unless the society actively strives to be xenophobic like the Azlanti, or the race in question has some serious baggage to deal with like a race finding sentient species are *not* off the menu or being former fanatical purifiers, or otherwise come into direct conflict with another race's morals. Rather, I feel most antagonism would stem from conflicts of ideology. The god(s) they worship. What rights they think sapient species should have. Whether power should be in the hands of the few, or the many. Essentially like stellaris where ethos that are polar opposites like how authoritarian and egalitarian governments have a hard time getting along. Which I think starfinder has the all the groundwork in place to cover with it's variety of factions that aren't all best buddies with each other. We just need the stories/GM's who are willing to elaborate on these things.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

We know there is still quite a bit of antagonism against half-orcs. Especially when it comes to dwarfs, who get a bonus when fighting them because of the ingrained, ancestral hatred.

And then elves are now completely xenophobic against everyone.

But also, do keep in mind that in the sections describing the new core races, there is a part that says what other races might think of you. Quite a bit of it could be considered negative. So it depends on if you would consider stereotypes to be racism.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WhiteWeasel wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
It's fantasy setting, it doesn't have to be "realistic".

Of course, no fantasy setting has to be "realistic". I hate that word. But of course, it's mostly sets the wrong frame of mind. I much prefer the word "believable" be used instead, as getting the reader to believe and accept the setting before them is far more important. Realistic is often just one of the tools to do that as you have to make less assumptions - or conversely, count on the reader having certain assumptions that you don't have to elaborate on.

{. . .}

How about "cinematically compatible"? Although that has its own particular problems with nudism . . . .


UnArcaneElection wrote:
WhiteWeasel wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
It's fantasy setting, it doesn't have to be "realistic".

Of course, no fantasy setting has to be "realistic". I hate that word. But of course, it's mostly sets the wrong frame of mind. I much prefer the word "believable" be used instead, as getting the reader to believe and accept the setting before them is far more important. Realistic is often just one of the tools to do that as you have to make less assumptions - or conversely, count on the reader having certain assumptions that you don't have to elaborate on.

{. . .}

How about "cinematically compatible"? Although that has its own particular problems with nudism . . . .

That reminds me of the original script for the first Star Trek movie (when it was still the pilot episode of a new Star Trek series). Gene Roddenberry had no problems with nudism and he wanted to show that mankind has grown out of the prudism of his time. So he added a small scene with a nudist family.


Barbarossa Rotbart wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:
WhiteWeasel wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
It's fantasy setting, it doesn't have to be "realistic".

Of course, no fantasy setting has to be "realistic". I hate that word. But of course, it's mostly sets the wrong frame of mind. I much prefer the word "believable" be used instead, as getting the reader to believe and accept the setting before them is far more important. Realistic is often just one of the tools to do that as you have to make less assumptions - or conversely, count on the reader having certain assumptions that you don't have to elaborate on.

{. . .}

How about "cinematically compatible"? Although that has its own particular problems with nudism . . . .

That reminds me of the original script for the first Star Trek movie (when it was still the pilot episode of a new Star Trek series). Gene Roddenberry had no problems with nudism and he wanted to show that mankind has grown out of the prudism of his time. So he added a small scene with a nudist family.

Again, I don't like Star Trek, but that is a neat tidbit of information. And it's one a wholeheartedly agree with him on. With how socially progressive our own culture is moving right now, for good and bad, I really don't think nudism will be much of an issue in a future where space flight is easy and cheap.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

On the matter of 'sentient slug beast', bear in mind that the milieu has a *lot* of critters who actually are legitimately hostile. To some extent, "learn to tolerate people unlike you" is a survival adaptation, because if every single species assumes hostility from every other species, they'll each individually probably get overwhelmed from the combined stress of fighting everyone. Especially when at least some factions of "hostiles" are relatively unified, namely the Dominion of the Black.

Getting along with the species with pointy ears and the sentient slug beast isn't just nice, its really, *really* helpful when the demons and tentacle monsters show up.


Metaphysician wrote:

On the matter of 'sentient slug beast', bear in mind that the milieu has a *lot* of critters who actually are legitimately hostile. To some extent, "learn to tolerate people unlike you" is a survival adaptation, because if every single species assumes hostility from every other species, they'll each individually probably get overwhelmed from the combined stress of fighting everyone. Especially when at least some factions of "hostiles" are relatively unified, namely the Dominion of the Black.

Getting along with the species with pointy ears and the sentient slug beast isn't just nice, its really, *really* helpful when the demons and tentacle monsters show up.

That is something of what happened with the Vesk. They were at war, conquering everyone and everything until the Swarm showed up. Then everything went to s%#@, and the Vesk had to ally with people instead of spending the resources to conquer them.


Azalah wrote:
Metaphysician wrote:

On the matter of 'sentient slug beast', bear in mind that the milieu has a *lot* of critters who actually are legitimately hostile. To some extent, "learn to tolerate people unlike you" is a survival adaptation, because if every single species assumes hostility from every other species, they'll each individually probably get overwhelmed from the combined stress of fighting everyone. Especially when at least some factions of "hostiles" are relatively unified, namely the Dominion of the Black.

Getting along with the species with pointy ears and the sentient slug beast isn't just nice, its really, *really* helpful when the demons and tentacle monsters show up.

That is something of what happened with the Vesk. They were at war, conquering everyone and everything until the Swarm showed up. Then everything went to s!%~, and the Vesk had to ally with people instead of spending the resources to conquer them.

Or Eox, for that matter, though in that case it was more "Attacked, got beaten and when the Vesk showed up, pushed for formal alliance to keep from getting beaten again."

It's quite possible that both still harbor ambitions of further conquest and are just waiting for the right moment. It's also possible that if the moment is put off long enough, they'll decide they benefit more from cooperation.

The Vesk have also apparently come into conflict with the Azlanti, though not a full fledged war at this point.


thejeff wrote:
Azalah wrote:
Metaphysician wrote:

On the matter of 'sentient slug beast', bear in mind that the milieu has a *lot* of critters who actually are legitimately hostile. To some extent, "learn to tolerate people unlike you" is a survival adaptation, because if every single species assumes hostility from every other species, they'll each individually probably get overwhelmed from the combined stress of fighting everyone. Especially when at least some factions of "hostiles" are relatively unified, namely the Dominion of the Black.

Getting along with the species with pointy ears and the sentient slug beast isn't just nice, its really, *really* helpful when the demons and tentacle monsters show up.

That is something of what happened with the Vesk. They were at war, conquering everyone and everything until the Swarm showed up. Then everything went to s!%~, and the Vesk had to ally with people instead of spending the resources to conquer them.

Or Eox, for that matter, though in that case it was more "Attacked, got beaten and when the Vesk showed up, pushed for formal alliance to keep from getting beaten again."

It's quite possible that both still harbor ambitions of further conquest and are just waiting for the right moment. It's also possible that if the moment is put off long enough, they'll decide they benefit more from cooperation.

The Vesk have also apparently come into conflict with the Azlanti, though not a full fledged war at this point.

Eox did destroy two entire planets, and have to turn their entire population into undead. And by joining the Pact, the majority of their military decided to split.

Eox really has been through quite a bit in their bid to survive. Kinda have to give them credit with that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Azalah wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Azalah wrote:
Metaphysician wrote:

On the matter of 'sentient slug beast', bear in mind that the milieu has a *lot* of critters who actually are legitimately hostile. To some extent, "learn to tolerate people unlike you" is a survival adaptation, because if every single species assumes hostility from every other species, they'll each individually probably get overwhelmed from the combined stress of fighting everyone. Especially when at least some factions of "hostiles" are relatively unified, namely the Dominion of the Black.

Getting along with the species with pointy ears and the sentient slug beast isn't just nice, its really, *really* helpful when the demons and tentacle monsters show up.

That is something of what happened with the Vesk. They were at war, conquering everyone and everything until the Swarm showed up. Then everything went to s!%~, and the Vesk had to ally with people instead of spending the resources to conquer them.

Or Eox, for that matter, though in that case it was more "Attacked, got beaten and when the Vesk showed up, pushed for formal alliance to keep from getting beaten again."

It's quite possible that both still harbor ambitions of further conquest and are just waiting for the right moment. It's also possible that if the moment is put off long enough, they'll decide they benefit more from cooperation.

The Vesk have also apparently come into conflict with the Azlanti, though not a full fledged war at this point.

Eox did destroy two entire planets, and have to turn their entire population into undead. And by joining the Pact, the majority of their military decided to split.

Eox really has been through quite a bit in their bid to survive. Kinda have to give them credit with that.

That was long ago, before the Gap. I was talking about their post-Gap Magefire Assault on Absalom Station. There's also plenty of speculation about the Corpse Fleet still having ties to Eox.

Even back in that initial pre-Gap war, given that it appears Eox was the aggressor and basically destroyed their own planet along with the Twins, I don't really need to give them any credit. They brought all their problems on themselves.

101 to 150 of 274 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Starfinder / Starfinder General Discussion / Nudism in SF All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.