Edge of the Empire Core Rulebook, page 370 (first full paragraph): "However, training facilities on planets such as Carida now induct human recruits into the Stormtrooper Corps."
Doesn't mention gender, though...
Are there Alien and/or Female Stormtroopers in your Galaxy?
Technically, you could take that to mean non-humans are recruited into the stormtrooper Corps on planets that are not like Carida. Like Duro 
Essential Guide to Warfare (Legends obviously, but a very recent resource) has a whole box on female stormtroopers.
In our game, the only time it came up we played it for laughs.
Two characters, male and female sneaking into a civilian ship in false Imperial uniforms. The female had connived to buy a female stormtrooper uniform and a false stormtrooper ID with a vaguely female name from a corrupt Naval supply officer. She did this because otherwise the male character would have had to take that pathway in alone.
As it happened, this became important to the plot because the other characters were sneaking in behind them and were stymied by a checkpoint. But the crew of the ship they were sneaking into became obsessed with arguing about whether that was really one of the 'mythical female stormtroopers' going through the checkpoint and that caused enough of a distraction for the rest of the team to sneak past!
I still see storm troopers as the cloned mass produced and conditioned super loyal soldiers with very little room for deviation. Near humans, females and aliens were put to use by the Empire in other ways. Officers/Agents/Bounty Hunters/Assassins etc...
I see no logical rationale for an evil meglomaniac to not stick with genetically bred perfect soldiers that obey pre-programmed subconscious commands across galactic distances during times of conflict.
Several good reasons, actually. First and foremost your army will always be outsiders to the populace. Go to America (if you don't already live there) and witness how adoring the general public are of those in the armed forces (way out of proportion to other countries but that's a different discussion). Now imagine if the armed forces of the US were all mercenaries from China (hypothetically). See how the dynamic abruptly changes as the populace no longer regards the military as part of them. The people cannot relate to the soldiers, they cannot aspire to be those soldiers. This is a very significant problem if you're an autocratic ruler who sometimes uses the military to maintain order. People are far less likely to turn on your military if it's not some alien clone but that their uncle is one of those troopers.
Secondly, no matter how you slice up those cloning facilities and distribute them, they're inherently a smaller and more vulnerable source of military than the general population. A cloning facility can be bombed and then you have lost your production capability for all those soldiers. If you're getting local youths to join up, it takes a very great deal more to eliminate that source. Strategically, there are weaknesses to using clones.
Thirdly, cost. You could spin this either way as it's science fiction but it seems to me most supportable that making your army out of clones is going to be a lot more expensive than getting recruits from the population. But as I say, it's sci-fi so you could just say that's not true or even the other way around if you wished.
Fourthly, the clone soldiers are ONLY soldiers. Again, look at America - if it were invaded you would have previous members popping up everywhere to fight. By using the general population you get a legacy of trained soldiers out there who are also probably more loyal to you because of their career. A clone is a 24/7 soldier that isn't going to go out and have a self-supporting life but still be available if you need them later. There's no part time clone soldiers you can draw on yet keep costs down. They're full-time dependents you have to feed, house, look-after, etc.
Fifthly, this isn't like WH40K where the "genetically bred perfect soldiers" as you call them actually are that. It's Star Wars where the clone troopers are skilled and healthy soldiers but not really especially superior. Scrappy rebels are still going to have a pretty good chance against them one on one. A kid trained from a young age (as we see in the Rebels episodes) is going to be more or less equivalent to the clone soldier. The clone might be a little taller or broader, but they're not much different. The point about the clones was their loyalty, not that they were "genetic super-soldiers".
The main advantage of clones is loyalty. They're not likely to side with the populace if you send them against it, or overthrow you in a coup. That's what you get for the cost, imo. And that's valuable. But there are a number of very good reasons not to stick with clones and when it comes to loyalty, I would rather have to make occasional concessions to the military to keep them inline but have the knock-on benefits of population integration, than mindless loyalty of my soldiers but alienate the much more numerous civilian populations. Additionally, you don't need people to be clones to indoctrinate them. Plenty of modern militaries show just how far you can go with regular people. (unfortunately).
Edited by knasserIIKnasserll, lots of great points.
My thoughts on the first point are that I feel the general population would still support the military if the Stormtroopers were clones. I think it all comes down to spin. My thoughts/opinions are that the Stormtroopers can be clones but everyone else is not. But really, it's the leadership that's important. Especially with a good media spin. Officers are the names and faces that are important in the media machine. Who really cares about a nameless squad that held a hill when it was General Ricky who ordered them to do it. The General is a true hero and would gain support especially if he is your uncle. To give it a sports analogy, who cares or reports on the offensive line players protecting a quarterback. It's all about Tom Brady making the pass and winning the day. Clones are just a tool to be used by "real" people to accomplish a task.
To the second point, the same can be said about any important tool. What if the shipyards were destroyed? What about the blaster rifle plants? I'll agree that making clones on only one world is dumb, but if they spread that out then relying on clone manufacturing is no worse than any other tool.
I agree that cost can go either way. It's all in how the fiction writers decide to justify costs and how long things take.
Eh, you don't have to look after clones in their old age because they age faster and all die off. Besides, with the Empire in control, the galaxy is at peace and there are no grand wars that would require mass armies. If one did break out, then just rev up the clone vats and pump some highly trained warriors out. Simple as that. 
Good points on the "genetically bread super soldiers." Again, on cost, how long and expensive is it to train a child from a young age to be a warrior compared to the couple years it takes to create and train a clone? Besides, what kind of sick person wants to train a kid to fight? It's a peaceful galaxy. That kid should go to college and fulfill his dreams. Not be sent to war training. But, if that kid wants to join the military, then he'll become an officer and order around those clones. It's that kind of smart human that is needed to ensure tools are used as intended for best results.
In the game I'm running, there are very few females in the Stormtrooper ranks, but it becomes more common in the regular army, and in officers ranks. Naval included. Why? Meh, its just how I view what I've seen of the Universe that Lucas (and other writers) has created. As for aliens, not within the Stormtrooper ranks at all, and even outside of them it's not very common. Specialists, and the very rare officer here and there (Outer Rim Occupations) might be of the "Near-Human" categories, but yeah...the timeline I'm currently running (between episodes 4 and 5) the Imperials have a major hate-on (disrespect) for non-humans.
My thoughts on the first point are that I feel the general population would still support the military if the Stormtroopers were clones. I think it all comes down to spin. My thoughts/opinions are that the Stormtroopers can be clones but everyone else is not. But really, it's the leadership that's important. Especially with a good media spin. Officers are the names and faces that are important in the media machine. Who really cares about a nameless squad that held a hill when it was General Ricky who ordered them to do it. The General is a true hero and would gain support especially if he is your uncle. To give it a sports analogy, who cares or reports on the offensive line players protecting a quarterback. It's all about Tom Brady making the pass and winning the day. Clones are just a tool to be used by "real" people to accomplish a task.
What you say is true - when things are going well. Yes, the general populace might not care overmuch which nameless squad held a hill when General Ricky ordered them to do it. This is true. But you're thinking in the context of your own society at the present day (I'm making a likely guess here). But imagine the situation when things are not going well. You're angry with the government, food is short, economy is weak, you want to do something but there are tanks on the street and foot-soldiers around the governor's mansion. Now when those soldiers are your own people, fighting back is a different prospect to when they're some outsiders who don't even have families. When those clones are patrolling your streets they can't look in on you and relate to you or understand your life or say "my mother is in the same situation, we're just trying to keep order." They are outside oppressors and there is no getting past that.
Basically, think outside the view of, for example, a modern day American and imagine for a moment you're a resident in Cairo two years ago. The army are dictating to the government, they've appeared on the streets fully armed. Things are pretty bad but ultimately you think that at least that army is made up of Egyptians like you. They will have relatives on your side, they care about the country, you probably know some of them. Imagine that they were imported soldiers from Qatar. Or Israeli! Now they're oppressors. And there's one other thing running through your mind aswell. When the president gives the order to turn their guns on the protestors, maybe the army wont do that. But the outsiders? Oh, they will.
Civilians always outnumber the army, even in very militaristic societies. Even if they didn't, there's enough parity to undermine and sabotage armed forces. An army is dependent on a supportive civilian population - food, infrastructure, factory work, intelligence and more. "Support our boys" doesn't work with clones. A smart dictator will exploit anything to stop open rebellion. Having an army that is willing to kill the civilian population is one way, but it's a short-term solution because you still need a loyal civilian base to support them. Make the army true outsiders, that loyalty plummets. People will HATE them.
Once things go bad and you have to use the army as a tool of oppression, rather than heroes who will go out and fight terrorists who want to keep their oil for themselves, whether they are your own people or not suddenly matters a lot. And I think it's fair to say that the Emperor is heading toward a totalitarian and oppressive state.
My thoughts, anyway.
Edited by knasserIII'm sure I'm going to get flamed for this, but I feel it important to mention that Star Wars as we love it is more the effort of Marcia Lucas than George. You can thank him for the latter series that is generally considered poop.
http://geektyrant.com/news/2011/3/8/3-ways-george-lucas-ex-wife-helped-star-wars.html
It puts this Star Wars sexism debate in another light when you think about the hurtful divorce, Maria's vanishing from Hollywood, and the way George so voraciously sought out and eliminated the original versions in favour of his glitz and glam ones.
Maybe the reason the empire didn't have many women on screen was meta, not in the universe.
While you might have a point, it seems unlikely - the majority of the male-dominated Empire is in the Original Trilogy (which she helped on) and the special editions did not reduce the number of women on screen. (mostly just increasing the number of aliens).
However, I believe it was meta, but it was a reality of filming in the 70s and 80s on a budget. The film industry was/is male dominated, the military (which is what we're seeing on screen) was male dominated and generally thought of as a male occupation. Naturally, when hiring people to play soldiers, they hired men. Same reason we don't see many women in the rebellion military either; hell the defenders on Hoth were an actual reservist military unit. It's a product of it's time, just like any other film.
While you might have a point, it seems unlikely - the majority of the male-dominated Empire is in the Original Trilogy (which she helped on) and the special editions did not reduce the number of women on screen. (mostly just increasing the number of aliens).
However, I believe it was meta, but it was a reality of filming in the 70s and 80s on a budget. The film industry was/is male dominated, the military (which is what we're seeing on screen) was male dominated and generally thought of as a male occupation. Naturally, when hiring people to play soldiers, they hired men. Same reason we don't see many women in the rebellion military either; hell the defenders on Hoth were an actual reservist military unit. It's a product of it's time, just like any other film.
OK but the difference in female representation in the two trilogies isn't a matter of counting heads but rather quality of content: Leia's involvement vs. Padme's.
Really there wasn't more than a shot here or there of any other female in any of the movies so we are left to compare these two characters as being the sole representation of our gender. I would be exhausted to have to talk to someone who thought Padme's roles in the story was crafted with the same care and quality as Leia's had been. In large majority people agree Leia was the winner. What was the difference? Marcia.
At any rate, we both agree - the 70s and 80s made the movies sexist, not necessarily the universe. That makes Marcia's involvement especially noteworthy. You'd think Padme, (sarcasm) what with our modern world where racism and sexism are over and the rainbow war nearly won (/sarcasm) would surely be the better character. The 70s/80s were a tough time in Hollywood for female representation, as you said yourself. Leia ends up winning in a time and place that would have seemed unlikely.
I guess this is getting off topic. I just know it is absurd to look at a movie and say "That's how that fictional universe is". If the guys who rebooted BSG had that ridiculous mindset, the new show wouldn't have made waves. It would have been about repeating the same episode of two white space men playing baseball with super powered kids on Earth, over and over.
Just because a thing is one way, doesn't mean it needs to be forever. In fact, people don't respect copying and upholding stagnant ideas, they respect iterative re-invention and imaginative re-interpretation.
On a related and potentially informative note, I just remembered in Rebels, the very infantry-esq Sabine specifically mentions dropping out of the Imperial Academy on Mandalore. It doesn't specify she was in line to become a stormtrooper, but it's something to consider.
Bubblepopmei's got the gist if it. Star Wars is a fantasy, a creation, and there is no reason canon or otherwise to retain the inherent sexism of the time when the films were made or a lot of the EU books were written. In fact if you read the new canon books (A New Dawn, Kanobi) and that one about the dawn of the Jedi (can't remember the title) all depict the female characters in a much more modern light. Holding on to the concept that women are in anyway incapable or out of place in any role in the Star Wars universe is, frankly, juvenile.
Edited by FuriousGregBubblepopmei's got the gist if it. Star Wars is a fantasy, a creation, and there is no reason canon or otherwise to retain the inherent sexism of the time when the films were made or a lot of the EU books were written. In fact if you read the new canon books (A New Dawn, Kanobi) and that one about the dawn of the Jedi (can't remember the title) all depict the female characters in a much more modern light. Holding on to the concept that women are in anyway incapable or out of place in any role in the Star Wars universe is, frankly, juvenile.
Of course the female characters are going to be written in a much more modern light... it is, after all, modern times. You seem to be forgetting that most of the EU books that refer the Empire as sexist were written in the 90's, when terms like "glass ceiling" and "mommy track" were being thrown about (at least that seemed to be the case to me). Despite the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963, women in the 90's were still paid roughly 70 (or thereabouts) cents for every dollar men made in the same position with the same qualifications. Writers write what they see, know, and experience.
And no one (definitely not I) is saying that women are incapable or out of place in any role in the Star Wars universe, it is just that this one particular organization, called the Galactic Empire, seems to have some pretty selective policies, either official or unofficial, that are deemed racist, sexist, and xenophobic. Personally, I don't have a problem with women or aliens being Stormtroopers and if I set policy for the Imperial Military I probably would say, let them all in. However, this has not been so.
Now.. if anyone needs to complain or comment about something, it should be that the first and so far only known LGBT character is an Imperial bureaucrat/officer. Key word there: Imperial. The Empire is not a good thing. The democracy known as the Republic has fallen into a weird pseudo-democratic dictatorship governed by one dude. This dude is one bad dude. He ordered the destruction of the Jedi Order, twisted the most public member of the Order into his puppet, and ordered the construction of not one but two! Planet Killing stations. While the people within the Empire are for the most part, not evil and cruel and deceitful, the fact remains that the Empire is still bad as a system. That is what the OT has beaten into us, reinforced by the PT.
Now the book this character is in isn't out yet, so I have no idea what that character's arc is going to be. But I sure hope that this character isn't evil, overtly or covertly. I hope that she isn't cruel, deceitful, or just a plain bad person. I hope that she starts out as an Imperial but then defects or throws in with the Rebels for some reason not related to her sexual orientation. Because I can definitely foresee someone saying to another person reading this book, whether it's a child or an adult reading it, that LGBT must be bad because Disney put an LGBT on the Imperial side. The bad side.
I guess I keep my Imperials the mentally-backwards space nazis I always considered them, although as I immerse myself into the setting I find things not so black and white.
Aliens? They serve the empire in chains.
Female humans? I've usually had women in command positions rather than grunts, but I don't generally call out gender on stormtroopers.
Good topic OP, it pointed out to me that I don't mix my galaxy's NPCs up quite enough. There's probably as many genders as there are species in the galaxy.
Bubblepopmei's got the gist if it. Star Wars is a fantasy, a creation, and there is no reason canon or otherwise to retain the inherent sexism of the time when the films were made or a lot of the EU books were written. In fact if you read the new canon books (A New Dawn, Kanobi) and that one about the dawn of the Jedi (can't remember the title) all depict the female characters in a much more modern light. Holding on to the concept that women are in anyway incapable or out of place in any role in the Star Wars universe is, frankly, juvenile.
Of course the female characters are going to be written in a much more modern light... it is, after all, modern times. You seem to be forgetting that most of the EU books that refer the Empire as sexist were written in the 90's, when terms like "glass ceiling" and "mommy track" were being thrown about (at least that seemed to be the case to me). Despite the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963, women in the 90's were still paid roughly 70 (or thereabouts) cents for every dollar men made in the same position with the same qualifications. Writers write what they see, know, and experience.
And no one (definitely not I) is saying that women are incapable or out of place in any role in the Star Wars universe, it is just that this one particular organization, called the Galactic Empire, seems to have some pretty selective policies, either official or unofficial, that are deemed racist, sexist, and xenophobic. Personally, I don't have a problem with women or aliens being Stormtroopers and if I set policy for the Imperial Military I probably would say, let them all in. However, this has not been so.
Now.. if anyone needs to complain or comment about something, it should be that the first and so far only known LGBT character is an Imperial bureaucrat/officer. Key word there: Imperial. The Empire is not a good thing. The democracy known as the Republic has fallen into a weird pseudo-democratic dictatorship governed by one dude. This dude is one bad dude. He ordered the destruction of the Jedi Order, twisted the most public member of the Order into his puppet, and ordered the construction of not one but two! Planet Killing stations. While the people within the Empire are for the most part, not evil and cruel and deceitful, the fact remains that the Empire is still bad as a system. That is what the OT has beaten into us, reinforced by the PT.
Now the book this character is in isn't out yet, so I have no idea what that character's arc is going to be. But I sure hope that this character isn't evil, overtly or covertly. I hope that she isn't cruel, deceitful, or just a plain bad person. I hope that she starts out as an Imperial but then defects or throws in with the Rebels for some reason not related to her sexual orientation. Because I can definitely foresee someone saying to another person reading this book, whether it's a child or an adult reading it, that LGBT must be bad because Disney put an LGBT on the Imperial side. The bad side.
Yah this book is going to be very interesting. I do feel like there's often this meta that people miss when it comes to including LGBT characters in content. Admiral Cain was an out lesbian - she was the villain. Gaeta was gay - he sided with Baltar and later mutinied. Basically, villain. It happens in a lot of shows but only some people notice or care. Those are both interesting characters, I especially like Cain, but having them be the only representation is off putting. To morons, it subconsciously equates LGBT with bad. I guess morons were the ones thinking it was bad anyway, though...
To the idea of the Galactic Empire being bad - I'm certain that the overwhelming majority of those who enlisted do not feel they are evil. Their leader dresses funny, but the Jedi hurt him and he just wants to hide his face. He is the legitimate government, survived an attempted coup, and after years of war is really focused on making the galaxy a safer place. He's constructed an enormous fleet to protect us and has made life better (for humans - likely by redistributing the wealth of the non-human races he subjugates).
I see parallels with how our own countries are behaving in N. America. Canada is on the precipice of a privacy destroying bill that a lot of people support "for safe and secure society", the country's budget has been changed from 10 years ago to focus on a more militarized approach, the foreign policy has changed, and now we're in a war. Look mom, we're America! Ya, that's exactly how America spends their money too. Bills are being put forth to reduce voter rights, to increase powers to combat privacy, and the military is half your budget. You have military "colonies" in dozens of countries and regularly engage in several wars.
I am not saying these two countries are bad - I'm just drawing parallels with Emperor Palpatine. From a non-human perspective, the Empire is definitely not the government you want. It is bad news bears. But a lot of people range in support from fanatically and ignorantly conservative to bleeding-heart, join the rebellion liberal. The in between is where most people live. This is the government, this is their lives, and when you see a Star Destroyer in the sky, you could either be afraid or in awe. Either way, the kids rush to the local hill to try to get a better view - because boats are cool.
I hope that people aren't missing my point which is that regardless of whether or not a game setting is sexist, a fiction in any case, the RPG itself should not be. This doesn't mean that the Fluff can't describe speciesism and sexism within the Galactic Empire or the Outer Rim as a matter of reference but it should not be written into the Players section as if it were okay. Those that say that the line in question from "the other thread" was such a reference are not taking into account where it was written, as a Player motivation in the Equipment section.
Basically the Setting can be anything and can refer to all kinds of -isms but the Game Rule Books should not be written as such.
I do feel like there's often this meta that people miss when it comes to including LGBT characters in content. Admiral Cain was an out lesbian - she was the villain. Gaeta was *** - he sided with Baltar and later mutinied. Basically, villain. It happens in a lot of shows but only some people notice or care. Those are both interesting characters, I especially like Cain, but having them be the only representation is off putting. To morons, it subconsciously equates LGBT with bad. I guess morons were the ones thinking it was bad anyway, though...
I totally get where you're coming from with the annoyance about another LGBT character being a villain because I'm familiar with the trope of using non-standard sexuality to characterize a Bad Guy. It's usually, I think, one of two reasons. It's commonly to make the villain more threatening on some level because some people find it sexually threatening - the *** villain who aggressively comes on to straight males is the classic example. A lesbian who lacks interest in men is a less common example - I suspect because that's only threatening to a small sub-set of especially messed up males. The most overt example is the hyper-masculine transvestite. But you get everything up to an including that villain in the last James Bond film. The other main reason you sometimes get the LGBT villain is for sexual titillation. That's typically your classic overly-sexy lesbian villainess trope. I find the former reason far more problematic, to be honest.
And it's easy to make the villains ga_y because the audience doesn't have to relate to the villain (though in the best stories, the audience does) so the villain being *** wont be a barrier to relating to them. Whereas for a hero to be *** that's a fundamental difference to most of the audience who will now mostly have a much harder time putting themselves in the hero's shoes. That's the big barrier that leads to *** villains being more common than *** heroes. I can watch a guy pine for a girl whether he's White, Black, Korean or a green alien from Xandar and relate to him - pretty much regardless of his age, religion, wealth or poverty. It has to be a good piece of characterization for me to emotionally engage on the same level to a guy romantically pining for another guy because I don't share that desire with him so it's only empathy kicking in, not shared purpose. And the latter is typically stronger than the former.
Personally, I'm all in favour of this character being a lesbian whether she's a villain or not, because it seems from what the author says it's not done for titillation or sexual threat (the two common negative reasons). And therefore it just normalizes the behaviour. I think it certainly increases the chance of a ga_y non-villain character. And anyway, who says just because she's Empire that she's a villain, anyway? Personally, I find it quite easy to relate to the Empire in a lot of ways.
It's also a big positive for me because I really hate the Empire being interpreted as a collection of all our 21st century prejudices and issues. It seems so lacking in imagination to me and so much just a cheap way of sticking labels on the Empire saying "Evil" to help the hard of thinking. The Empire are a fascist state with no democratic representation! You don't need to make them homophobic or sexist to make them evil and doing so just makes them cheap to me and to have shallow development as villains. It says to me not that someone has really crafted a dangerous and plausible group and more just assumed they'll be evil in all the same ways that modern 21st Century people can be. It's far more interesting and sinister to me if they don't care at all about sexism or sexuality and just want to get on with crushing freedom of speech.
Edited by knasserIILet's just take a moment to "appreciate" how FFG moderators have decided that lesbian is a good word and g a y is a bad word that needs to be censored.
The hits just keep coming with these guys.
Let's just take a moment to "appreciate" how FFG moderators have decided that lesbian is a good word and g a y is a bad word that needs to be censored.
The hits just keep coming with these guys.
I PM'd a mod about that a few weeks ago. I said that I get that it's used as an insult by some idiots, but that it was more offensive to me that it should be censored, personally. I know I have a non-US perspective so that might affect things, but I still think it's a mistake to do so.
I got a reply saying that they were going to review it. Haven't noticed a change, yet.
Let's just take a moment to "appreciate" how FFG moderators have decided that lesbian is a good word and g a y is a bad word that needs to be censored.
The hits just keep coming with these guys.
I PM'd a mod about that a few weeks ago. I said that I get that it's used as an insult by some idiots, but that it was more offensive to me that it should be censored, personally. I know I have a non-US perspective so that might affect things, but I still think it's a mistake to do so.
I got a reply saying that they were going to review it. Haven't noticed a change, yet.
Awesome! Ya its true it is totally used as an insult and that's surely the intent behind it. Tough call to make really, since the internet is where it is used incorrectly very often. Good that they are looking into it.
Let's just take a moment to "appreciate" how FFG moderators have decided that lesbian is a good word and g a y is a bad word that needs to be censored.
The hits just keep coming with these guys.
I PM'd a mod about that a few weeks ago. I said that I get that it's used as an insult by some idiots, but that it was more offensive to me that it should be censored, personally. I know I have a non-US perspective so that might affect things, but I still think it's a mistake to do so.
I got a reply saying that they were going to review it. Haven't noticed a change, yet.
Awesome! Ya its true it is totally used as an insult and that's surely the intent behind it. Tough call to make really, since the internet is where it is used incorrectly very often. Good that they are looking into it.
You can't get punched on the Internet. In fact, it reminds me of a line from the Conan stories: "The civilized man is less polite than the barbarian, because the barbarian knows words can lead to violence." (paraphrased). Consequently the Internet is ruder than real life.
Edited by knasserIIAh Robert, may he rest in peace. But that quote is so true and so on point with the internet.
Regarding the original topic - in the game I'm in, we've encountered female stormtroopers. We eally only knew one was female because we, erm, stormed a stormtrooper garrison-storefront when we knew half of them wouldn't be there, to hack the sergeant's terminal, and wound up stunning a few of them who were asleep in a cot room in the back (they were off-shift). At least one was a woman. We're playing around 0 ABY and so, in our version anyway (like Legacy), by this point most stormtroopers are conscripts, not Fett clones, what with the Kaminoan cloning facilities being destroyed.
Haven't seen any alien stormies yet, but we have had the occasion to have a Chiss front as an Imperial (though I think she wore a helmet) and pulled it off. Usually we present ourselves as imperial contractors since we have a couple non-near-Human xenos in the party.
Great post topic.
Everyone's galaxy far far away is different, and I think that female troopers would be almost unheard of in my EU games until the Legacy Era. For me, part of the xenophobia of the Empire goes side by side with the sexism that makes Isard, Dalla, and Jade so rare. It isn't that Palpatine hates aliens any more than he hates everyone else in the galaxy, he is just using it to divide populations.
Female troopers are new canon as of the Rebels prequel novel A New Dawn.
Hey, here is a Twitter comment about it: