Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game


Pathfinder Society


Starfinder


Starfinder Society

Nudism in SF


Starfinder General Discussion

151 to 200 of 235 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

thejeff wrote:
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...

Everyone makes mistakes. What I'm saying is that despite all their mistakes, they still find ways to survive. It might not be popular, or good, and you don't have to like them. But I give credit where it's due, and they are willing to do whatever it takes to keep going.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd respect Eoxians if they had instead demonstrated some long-term strategy and foresight not to nearly exterminate themselves. I'm not going to respect them simply because they are the undead equivalent of cockroaches.

What's next, respecting kobolds? ;)


Spacecaptain Pillbug Lebowski wrote:

I'd respect Eoxians if they had instead demonstrated some long-term strategy and foresight not to nearly exterminate themselves. I'm not going to respect them simply because they are the undead equivalent of cockroaches.

What's next, respecting kobolds? ;)

Pfft, and what about those measly little goblins, eh?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think there's really any doubt about those "connections" with the Corpse Fleet. Its basically an open secret that the Fleet still ultimately takes orders from Eox, they are just very technically deniable. Still, my own take is that Eox actually *is* sincere in its affiliation with the Pact. It is, after all, the only thing keeping them from being wiped out by the numerous people who hate them. They just are sincerely dedicated to the Pact, from a selfish ruthless manipulative NE perspective.

Shadow Lodge

Humans tendancy to assume that every species is a human in a funny suit was driven home in a recent scenario. A Ysoki was sweating in a hot and humid room. Sweating is something pretty unique to humans and there's no reason to assume that its normal for all species, (especially one covered in fur).

Evaporation cooling is pretty much our required secondary super power. It enables long distance running and lets us have this energy/heat producing brain


^Other mammals also have sweat glands, although usually not to as great an extent, and in differing proportions of the various types.

Shadow Lodge

Look, I know my time is hard to waste but making every post proof against pedantic dissection would qualify.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Look, I know my time is hard to waste but making every post proof against pedantic dissection would qualify.

How is it pedantic to say that other mammals have sweat glands when you said that sweat is something unique to humans?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Azalah wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Look, I know my time is hard to waste but making every post proof against pedantic dissection would qualify.
How is it pedantic to say that other mammals have sweat glands when you said that sweat is something unique to humans?

Because while they have sweat glands, they have and use them very differently than humans.

Sweating for cooling is at least close unique to humans. Horses (and other hoofed animals?) do sweat, but use a different kind of gland.

Rats for example only have them on their paws and that's not effective for cooling. Their main cooling mechanism is their tails. You'd never see a sweaty rat.
Obviously Ysoki aren't rats, but they're not human either. That example really is a classic example of humans in fur suits.


There have been human societies where not wearing clothing was perfectly acceptable (even today), but people probably wore clothes most of the time.

Clothes are a platform for status and fashion, and sometimes functional as well (protection from climate or gross conditions, support, etc). Police officers would still wear uniforms as well as armor, since it's easier to intimidate someone if they see the uniform. University students might be required to wear uniforms specific to their school. Clergy might wear ceremonial garments, at least when they're acting in "official" capacity. And of course sometimes they are not functional. Ancient Egyptian oyster divers did not have swimsuits, so they did their job in the nude. I presume they had something around their necks to carry the pearls in.

Some cultures might have special rules about when clothes should or should not be worn. Perhaps it's normal to not wear clothes at home, even if you have guests, or maybe even if you're visiting, but going to work without clothing might be viewed as "low class". (I know of no real culture that does this; picked this up from a sci-fi novel.)

Of course, in some societies, status/fashion "clothing" might consist of body paint, body piercings, diaphanous cloth, necklaces, partial clothing (clerks wear white pants... just pants), etc.

Azalah wrote:
starlite_cutie wrote:

The funny thing is, it would probably only bother members of the actual species. Species that are very similar to each other might not get away with it (near-human species) without a little social shaming, but 1-2 of them living among a different species could flap in the wind and probably never be questioned.

Just as humans don't care that animals run around naked as hell all of the time.

I feel like it would be more acceptable among Xenodruids/Wardens no matter where they are or who they are with. I mean, when you go around in giant, living ships and have power armor made from plants, I don't really see them putting on some space pants for every-day wear, ya know?

I wish I recalled the name of the novel, but I read a sci-fi novel where two barely-humanoid aliens didn't wear clothing and didn't know why humans always reacted badly to them. Finally one human told them bluntly to cover their genitals. They put on tiny underwear and everyone was okay with this.


Again, this deviates from my main point. While definitely interesting and something to be considered on the social side of nudism, I am trying to focus on the sheer legality of nudism.

It may be considered "low-class" to show up to work naked, but would it be illegal? A school may require a uniform, but a school's rules are often far more strict than the laws of the society that the school is in. However, there was a school in France where students and their teacher posed naked for an end-of-year photo.

There is also a school in Indiana where, while protesting a new dress code, students went to school naked. And test scores increased, students were more engaged, and at the end of it, the school made it so that students could go naked.

And then studies that show that nudists are much more body-positive, are generally happier, and children who grow up in nudist house-holds have less of those issues as teens and adults.

So it's been shown that once open nudity is accepted in the social atmosphere, people do better. It's just an issue of getting people to actually open up to it from their ingrained prejudices against it that has been beaten into their heads since they were kids.


Azalah wrote:

Again, this deviates from my main point. While definitely interesting and something to be considered on the social side of nudism, I am trying to focus on the sheer legality of nudism.

It may be considered "low-class" to show up to work naked, but would it be illegal? A school may require a uniform, but a school's rules are often far more strict than the laws of the society that the school is in. However, there was a school in France where students and their teacher posed naked for an end-of-year photo.

There is also a school in Indiana where, while protesting a new dress code, students went to school naked. And test scores increased, students were more engaged, and at the end of it, the school made it so that students could go naked.

And then studies that show that nudists are much more body-positive, are generally happier, and children who grow up in nudist house-holds have less of those issues as teens and adults.

So it's been shown that once open nudity is accepted in the social atmosphere, people do better. It's just an issue of getting people to actually open up to it from their ingrained prejudices against it that has been beaten into their heads since they were kids.

Reference for the Indiana story? I found a single story online, in a couple of places, but the same text. None of them real news outlets. At this point, I'd say it's fake news. :)

As for legality and social, it's really hard to separate the two. Laws against nudity are rooted in social/cultural taboos. And both are important, the social possibly more so. Even if it isn't illegal to show up for work naked, you might well get fired. Hell, you'll likely get fired if you show up dressed to much less formally than considered appropriate. Even if nudity is legal, you may still have plenty of enforced dress codes to deal with, unless it's also socially acceptable.


thejeff wrote:

Reference for the Indiana story? I found a single story online, in a couple of places, but the same text. None of them real news outlets. At this point, I'd say it's fake news. :)

As for legality and social, it's really hard to separate the two. Laws against nudity are rooted in social/cultural taboos. And both are important, the social possibly more so. Even if it isn't illegal to show up for work naked, you might well get fired. Hell, you'll likely get fired if you show up dressed to much less formally than considered appropriate. Even if nudity is legal, you may still have plenty of enforced dress codes to deal with, unless it's also socially acceptable.

I don't know what you would consider a "real" news outlet. Fox News, MSNBC, and every other major news outlet lies every day about many topics just to force a narrative. You should take everything with a grain of salt, even if it is being told to you by "real" news.

And I don't find the repeated text to be much of an issue. Again, news outlets often repeat the stories of other outlets, even going so far as to say the exact wording and even the same lame jokes. So call whatever you want "fake news," because there is tons of it everywhere, by everywhere.

And as for the legality and social issues of nudism, when something is made legal, it is then slowly made more acceptable socially. Of course, the opposite is also true, where something that becomes socially acceptable is then made legal. Gay marriage, and the current issues of legal marijuana, being some examples. There will always be people against those things, of course, but for the majority, it's fine.


Azalah wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Reference for the Indiana story? I found a single story online, in a couple of places, but the same text. None of them real news outlets. At this point, I'd say it's fake news. :)

As for legality and social, it's really hard to separate the two. Laws against nudity are rooted in social/cultural taboos. And both are important, the social possibly more so. Even if it isn't illegal to show up for work naked, you might well get fired. Hell, you'll likely get fired if you show up dressed to much less formally than considered appropriate. Even if nudity is legal, you may still have plenty of enforced dress codes to deal with, unless it's also socially acceptable.

I don't know what you would consider a "real" news outlet. Fox News, MSNBC, and every other major news outlet lies every day about many topics just to force a narrative. You should take everything with a grain of salt, even if it is being told to you by "real" news.

And I don't find the repeated text to be much of an issue. Again, news outlets often repeat the stories of other outlets, even going so far as to say the exact wording and even the same lame jokes. So call whatever you want "fake news," because there is tons of it everywhere, by everywhere

Perhaps, but you could point me towards something, if you want it taken at all seriously.

Looking a little closer, what I think is the origin of the story I found isn't even "fake news", but satire. Empire News, which claims to be "for entertainment only."

If it was true, I would expect a bunch of stories about it, even if it was just puritans flipping their lids about it.

By the way, I am amused by you telling me about taking everything with a grain of salt while I'm trying to get some evidence for a unsourced claim you've made. :)


thejeff wrote:
Azalah wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Reference for the Indiana story? I found a single story online, in a couple of places, but the same text. None of them real news outlets. At this point, I'd say it's fake news. :)

As for legality and social, it's really hard to separate the two. Laws against nudity are rooted in social/cultural taboos. And both are important, the social possibly more so. Even if it isn't illegal to show up for work naked, you might well get fired. Hell, you'll likely get fired if you show up dressed to much less formally than considered appropriate. Even if nudity is legal, you may still have plenty of enforced dress codes to deal with, unless it's also socially acceptable.

I don't know what you would consider a "real" news outlet. Fox News, MSNBC, and every other major news outlet lies every day about many topics just to force a narrative. You should take everything with a grain of salt, even if it is being told to you by "real" news.

And I don't find the repeated text to be much of an issue. Again, news outlets often repeat the stories of other outlets, even going so far as to say the exact wording and even the same lame jokes. So call whatever you want "fake news," because there is tons of it everywhere, by everywhere

Perhaps, but you could point me towards something, if you want it taken at all seriously.

Looking a little closer, what I think is the origin of the story I found isn't even "fake news", but satire. Empire News, which claims to be "for entertainment only."

If it was true, I would expect a bunch of stories about it, even if it was just puritans flipping their lids about it.

By the way, I am amused by you telling me about taking everything with a grain of salt while I'm trying to get some evidence for a unsourced claim you've made. :)

Hey, if it's satire, it's satire. I found it on Empire News as well. So I may very well be wrong about that claim. I didn't look that hard into it, I'll admit. But when there are real stories that sound like they should be satire, it's getting harder and harder to tell what is meant for "entertainment" and what is meant to be "fact."

Still, if it's false, then I retract my claim about that article. Happy?


Azalah wrote:

Hey, if it's satire, it's satire. I found it on Empire News as well. So I may very well be wrong about that claim. I didn't look that hard into it, I'll admit. But when there are real stories that sound like they should be satire, it's getting harder and harder to tell what is meant for "entertainment" and what is meant to be "fact."

Still, if it's false, then I retract my claim about that article. Happy?

It's cool.


To go back to my previous point about legality and social acceptance, when something is legal, it is most often also socially acceptable by the majority.

Uniforms are useful for people like law enforcement, not only because of the "intimidation" factor (though I don't think people meant to "serve and protect" should be intimidating), but so that you know they are who they claim to be. It'd be much easier to impersonate a police officer if there was no uniform or dress code. And we see that a lot with people who claim to be officers in civilian dress. But, since we do have some plain-clothes officers, I think that them going nude sometimes wouldn't be much of an issue either if it was socially acceptable to be nude.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Azalah wrote:


It may be considered "low-class" to show up to work naked,

Quite the opposite I'd imagine. Any job where you have a dangling participle and reasonably expect to keep it is going to clock in at white collar or higher. Yard work? Lumberjack? Scrap metal processor? Bouncer? Wildlife Masseur*, chemical plant operator, police officer, soldier welder fry cook you're going to need a little protection there. Being naked at work pretty much says 1) I don't expect to be doing anything dangerous and 2) I'm well off enough that I don't need to wear what my boss tells me.

*i worked at a wolf center this was almost half my job...


To be fair, I have done some yard work naked. The kind of stuff that isn't dangerous to dangly bits. And cooking is often done with just an apron.

But yes, if there is a potentially hazardous job to do, I certainly wouldn't begrudge anyone, nudist or not, taking the needed precaution to be safe. I'd rather be uncomfortable for a bit than be dead or mutilated.


What about semi-nudity?


Barbarossa Rotbart wrote:
What about semi-nudity?

You mean Second Skin?


Barbarossa Rotbart wrote:
What about semi-nudity?

If full nudity is legal and fine, why wouldn't semi-nudity be?


Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Barbarossa Rotbart wrote:
What about semi-nudity?
You mean Second Skin?

No, because Second Skins still covers everything. I mean clothing that covers nothing important or is very transparent.

Azalah wrote:
Barbarossa Rotbart wrote:
What about semi-nudity?
If full nudity is legal and fine, why wouldn't semi-nudity be?

That's not what I mean. It could be that instead of running around competey naked or using body paint, piercings and tattoos, people wear clothing that is either transparent, leaves certain parts uncovered or both. Then uniforms, fashion and even protective gear are possible.


Pasty armor is something you can probably file under "stuff Paizo is never going to feature in an official capacity,"

They made an effort to avoid the chainmail bikini in PF, I doubt they're altering course in SF.

Zero Suit (aka Second Skin) is the best you're going to get on that front although if you want to wave the pendant stick around, nothing says SS can't be transparent.


Barbarossa Rotbart wrote:
That's not what I mean. It could be that instead of running around competey naked or using body paint, piercings and tattoos, people wear clothing that is either transparent, leaves certain parts uncovered or both. Then uniforms, fashion and even protective gear are possible.

Ah. Yeah, I think that would be possible. Some armor could easily be like that even as they are. Freebooter armor, for example, doesn't mention anything about pants.

"...freebooter armor features an armored jacket or breastplate, heavy boots and gloves, numerous straps and hidden weapons, and a helmet."

Echelon Fashion armor is "available in daring Modern designs, using force fields and the highest-tech fibers to create any sort of outfit imaginable..

The Swarmsuit could be arranged to only cover high-priority areas while keeping the rest exposed.


Azalah wrote:
Barbarossa Rotbart wrote:
That's not what I mean. It could be that instead of running around competey naked or using body paint, piercings and tattoos, people wear clothing that is either transparent, leaves certain parts uncovered or both. Then uniforms, fashion and even protective gear are possible.

Ah. Yeah, I think that would be possible. Some armor could easily be like that even as they are. Freebooter armor, for example, doesn't mention anything about pants.

"...freebooter armor features an armored jacket or breastplate, heavy boots and gloves, numerous straps and hidden weapons, and a helmet."

Echelon Fashion armor is "available in daring Modern designs, using force fields and the highest-tech fibers to create any sort of outfit imaginable..

The Swarmsuit could be arranged to only cover high-priority areas while keeping the rest exposed.

There is a picture of freebooter armor, that shows no pants.


There are some armors in Pathfinder that don't require pants as well. The chain shirt and breastplate are two examples off the top of my head.

So, yes, you can still be partially nude and still have all the benefits of armor. And it works better in Starfinder because now there is the excuse of, "Well it has a force field to protect the uncovered areas."


Yeah, if anything the Chainmail Bikini is more viable (if unlikely to ever be "official", though Stationwear arguably can be it if you want) now because of that mechanic being canon.


I am curious how far the Echelon Fashion armor can go. If it's "any sort of outfit imaginable," could it potentially just be a collar, belt, wrist, and ankle cuffs? At such a high level and cost, I'd imagine the technology put into it could make such miniaturization feasible. Unlike the cheaper, but similar, Stationwear, which could potentially be revealing but not to the same extent.


Azalah wrote:
I am curious how far the Echelon Fashion armor can go. If it's "any sort of outfit imaginable," could it potentially just be a collar, belt, wrist, and ankle cuffs? At such a high level and cost, I'd imagine the technology put into it could make such miniaturization feasible. Unlike the cheaper, but similar, Stationwear, which could potentially be revealing but not to the same extent.

For those that don't know:

Starfinder wrote:
Modeled after the universe’s most cutting-edge fashions, this lightly armored clothing is available in daring modern designs, using force fields and the highest-tech fibers to create any sort of outfit imaginable. Bespoke echelon fashions are often tailor made for the orderer and meant to look unique.

Daring is the operative word here. In Ancient Greece, young men would often dare to go traveling with the Chlamys cloak and nothing else. Then you have public nudity in the gymnasiums.

What happened to our permissive culture? I would think that culture in the Starfinder universe would be permissive for nudity. Although again daring is the operative word. People might be running around in swim suit like fashions in the malls. Like what they said girls in Southern California do during the summer months.


EltonJ wrote:


Daring is the operative word here. In Ancient Greece, young men would often dare to go traveling with the Chlamys cloak and nothing else. Then you have public nudity in the gymnasiums.

What happened to our permissive culture? I would think that culture in the Starfinder universe would be permissive for nudity. Although again daring is the operative word. People might be running around in swim suit like fashions in the malls. Like what they said girls in Southern California do during the summer months.

I was commenting more on the technological side of what "daring" could mean. As in, how small with as little coverage as possible would it feasibly be able to go with that amount of tech.

I think we've already established that nudity would, for the most part, be permissible in the Starfinder universe. That being said, I think fetish-wear or overtly/obviously sexual outfits and exposure would still be illegal, like it is in modern places that do allow public nudity. Just because it's legal to have your junk out doesn't mean it's legal to go waving it around at people to get your rocks off.


I don't see how they could possibly ban fetish-wear or "obviously sexual" outfits. Porn has always been in the eye of the beholder, and Starfinder has too many beholders turned on by too many things to make that any kind of a starter. What do you do when you find out the Vesk are turned on by absolutely any kind of hat? Ban hats? That makes no sense. And that's before we start discussing fundamentally non-humanoid races like Urogs, who might be sexually aroused by lightning storms and/or anything iridescent.

The only functional option I see is to overcommit to freedom of speech: you have a right to dress any way you like in public, and that right stops where any other sophont begins (so e.g. you cannot walk around in an outfit that impedes a public thoroughfare). Your rights in private are fundamentally not protected, and wholly governed by the owner of the establishment in question, so good luck getting away with THAT particularly dashing beret in the Vesk embassy, good sir.


I suppose that is an interesting point. By who's morality will things be judged as sexual? I think that depends on the race that controls that particular area.

Going off of your example of Vesks being attracted to hats, it may be logical to assume that in Vesk-controlled areas, hats may be deemed as too lewd for public wear. A Vesk in human-controlled areas just might have to deal with people wearing hats. But one person wearing a hat where a lot of Vesk live and work could potentially cause issues. Rubber-necking while driving is the first thing to come to mind.

Of course, this goes into a whole other topic of not just public nudity, but public lewdness. That might be legal as well, if voyeurists have really pushed for it, but I kind of doubt it. While I personally wouldn't mind it, mainly because I just think sexuality is natural and something that all creatures have in common (except maybe androids), so I don't think it should be a taboo thing, nudists already have the stigma of just wanting to "show off."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Azalah wrote:
I was commenting more on the technological side of what "daring" could mean. As in, how small with as little coverage as possible would it feasibly be able to go with that amount of tech.

If this were the real world, there would likely be constraints as to just how revealing/scanty the garb could be and still be able to contain an emitter antenna/web and battery pack for that personal forcefield. If the clothing/outfit is below that threshold, you're going to have to store that emitter or battery somewhere... else.

Which is why I'm proud to announce the newest product from RyskCo® Bioware™: storage cheeks! Make your ysoki friends jealous and amaze your opponents when you Quickdraw that needed item literally from your _ss!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Azalah wrote:
Going off of your example of Vesks being attracted to hats, it may be logical to assume that in Vesk-controlled areas, hats may be deemed as too lewd for public wear.

Now imagine the horrified look on a vesk parent's face when they see a young human reading Caps for Sale...

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
quindraco wrote:


The only functional option I see is to overcommit to freedom of speech: you have a right to dress any way you like in public, and that right stops where any other sophont begins (so e.g. you cannot walk around in an outfit that impedes a public thoroughfare). Your rights in private are fundamentally not protected, and wholly governed by the owner of the establishment in question, so good luck getting away with THAT particularly dashing beret in the Vesk embassy, good sir.

you're assuming a Good government that values multiculturalism, diversity and has the introspection necessary to tell something that is good from the way it's always been.

I mean i know it's a fantasy game with space lizards and FTL travel but THATS pushing it... :)

I could easily see someone like the vesk either explicitly or indirectly promoting their ideas of modesty as they conquer the universe, either as "you will dress this way or be arrested" or "all government officials will be wearing clothing that covers X amount..."

If vesk are being distracted by bizarre alien temptresses and their wanton hat displays, it would make sense for them to ban hats.

Its a big universe. Somewhere like absolom station probably goes with whatever other parts of the universe not so much, as needed for the story.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Crap, looks like we got another Will Riker and Thomas Riker incident, this time with BNW. Whose idea again was it to make a pugwampi transporter chief?

Edit: Wait, now there's only one again?! Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop drinking Romulan ale.


Spacecaptain Pillbug Lebowski wrote:

Crap, looks like we got another Will Riker and Thomas Riker incident, this time with BNW. Whose idea again was it to make a pugwampi transporter chief?

Edit: Wait, now there's only one again?! Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop drinking Romulan ale.

While I'm sure that would be funny to someone who likes Star Trek, that was completely lost on me. So I hope you enjoy the confusion you have given me.

Sir RicHunt Attenwampi wrote:
If this were the real world, there would likely be constraints as to just how revealing/scanty the garb could be and still be able to contain an emitter antenna/web and battery pack for that personal forcefield. If the clothing/outfit is below that threshold, you're going to have to store that emitter or battery somewhere... else.

And that is why I suggested maybe a collar, belt, wrist, and ankle bands. Depending on how big those batteries are, it may be possible to have it look like an amulet, which you can then press to activate the armor.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

you're assuming a Good government that values multiculturalism, diversity and has the introspection necessary to tell something that is good from the way it's always been.

I mean i know it's a fantasy game with space lizards and FTL travel but THATS pushing it... :)

I could easily see someone like the vesk either explicitly or indirectly promoting their ideas of modesty as they conquer the universe, either as "you will dress this way or be arrested" or "all government officials will be wearing clothing that covers X amount..."

If vesk are being distracted by bizarre alien temptresses and their wanton hat displays, it would make sense for them to ban hats.

Its a big universe. Somewhere like absolom station probably goes with whatever other parts of the universe not so much, as needed for the story.

Sorry, I thought we were discussing Absalom Station! Obviously, local planetary laws will be wildly different - for example, I guarantee you, Eox hasn't got any laws that acknowledge the existence of sexuality, like parental rights (which probably got replaced with property rights long ago). You're definitely right about the Vesk - any Veskarium planet's laws will be, "dress per our standards or die", although I bet Skittermanders get away with public nudity because the Vesk law in question bans how much scale you can show, or something.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

you're assuming a Good government that values multiculturalism, diversity and has the introspection necessary to tell something that is good from the way it's always been.

I mean i know it's a fantasy game with space lizards and FTL travel but THATS pushing it... :)

I could easily see someone like the vesk either explicitly or indirectly promoting their ideas of modesty as they conquer the universe, either as "you will dress this way or be arrested" or "all government officials will be wearing clothing that covers X amount..."

If vesk are being distracted by bizarre alien temptresses and their wanton hat displays, it would make sense for them to ban hats.

Its a big universe. Somewhere like absolom station probably goes with whatever other parts of the universe not so much, as needed for the story.

Sorry, I thought we were discussing Absalom Station! Obviously, local planetary laws will be wildly different - for example, I guarantee you, Eox hasn't got any laws that acknowledge the existence of sexuality, like parental rights (which probably got replaced with property rights long ago). You're definitely right about the Vesk - any Veskarium planet's laws will be, "dress per our standards or die", although I bet Skittermanders get away with public nudity because the Vesk law in question bans how much scale you can show, or something.

What you don't see are Skittermanders wearing hats, outside of the Red District. Inside, well, you know how Vesk are....


quindraco wrote:
You're definitely right about the Vesk - any Veskarium planet's laws will be, "dress per our standards or die", although I bet Skittermanders get away with public nudity because the Vesk law in question bans how much scale you can show, or something.

If it's about how much scale that can be shown, then fleshy creatures such as humans should be fine as well. Vesk morality laws may only be enforced upon Vesk. They have conquered many planets and taken on many different cultures. So while they may be somewhat strict in terms of the laws and customs Vesk adhere to, they are probably not as strict when it comes to enforcing those customs onto non-Vesk. Again, Skittermanders are a good example of this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Azalah wrote:
Spacecaptain Pillbug Lebowski wrote:

Crap, looks like we got another Will Riker and Thomas Riker incident, this time with BNW. Whose idea again was it to make a pugwampi transporter chief?

Edit: Wait, now there's only one again?! Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop drinking Romulan ale.

While I'm sure that would be funny to someone who likes Star Trek, that was completely lost on me. So I hope you enjoy the confusion you have given me.

The best jokes are the ones that very few people grok.

Azalah wrote:
And that is why I suggested maybe a collar, belt, wrist, and ankle bands. Depending on how big those batteries are, it may be possible to have it look like an amulet, which you can then press to activate the armor.

Heck, who needs any clothes or accessories at all? In the Iron Man comics, Stark stored his Extremis Undersheath nanowear inside his bones.

Our lawyers must repeatedly remind the pugwampis in R&D that most humanoids are already using that space to store their blood-producing bone marrow.


Sir RicHunt Attenwampi wrote:
Heck, who needs any clothes or accessories at all? In the Iron Man comics, Stark stored his Extremis Undersheath nanowear inside his bones.

That's why I'm really hoping for some future sub-dermal armor. Maybe a nanofiber weave under or throughout the skin/scales for light, and some clearly bulkier plates for heavy. The cost would be fairly high for that, though. Really, it'd work better as something that can just be gotten and then still wear normal armor to stack the bonuses. No more than a +5 increase to AC, if that is the case.


I think not having that is deliberate: several other examples exist to indicate the Devs didn't want to repeat PF having a lot of boring but extremely important options. +N to AC stacking with armour would qualify for that category.


The Sideromancer wrote:
I think not having that is deliberate: several other examples exist to indicate the Devs didn't want to repeat PF having a lot of boring but extremely important options. +N to AC stacking with armour would qualify for that category.

That's why I think that if they do sub-dermal armor, it won't stack. Such as how you can technically already wear, say, the Jarlslayer power armor and Stationwear armor and Second Skin armor all at the same time.

It'd be "back-up" armor, so to speak. Armor that can't be taken away from you if you're captured or something.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
quindraco wrote:

I don't see how they could possibly ban fetish-wear or "obviously sexual" outfits. Porn has always been in the eye of the beholder, and Starfinder has too many beholders turned on by too many things to make that any kind of a starter. What do you do when you find out the Vesk are turned on by absolutely any kind of hat? Ban hats? That makes no sense. And that's before we start discussing fundamentally non-humanoid races like Urogs, who might be sexually aroused by lightning storms and/or anything iridescent.

{. . .}

Suddenly, I have this vision of a whole bunch of living floating spheres with lots of eyes showing up to crack down on the recent upswing in lack of modesty . . . .


1 person marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:


Suddenly, I have this vision of a whole bunch of living floating spheres with lots of eyes showing up to crack down on the recent upswing in lack of modesty . . . .

That sounds like something a very religious organization would do. They already do it in real life.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

My impression is that on Absalom Station, killing a goblin does count as murder :P Aka people in general are less hostile to weirder races than in pathfinder.

On the actual topic, I wonder if Kasatha would be anti nudists since they are described as traditionalists and consider uncovered mouth obscene, or if they would be okay with nudity as long mouth is covered xP


I want to see that character. A Kasatha nudist who only wears his/her scarf until they have to dress for combat. Or, the scarf could be part of an exposing armor, such as Station Wear or Echelon Fashion.

151 to 200 of 235 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Starfinder® / Starfinder General Discussion / Nudism in SF All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.