GlamdringRST said:

Except that the Deathwatch isn't subservient to the Inquisition, they are equals. So she can try to boss them around, but all she'd get for her trouble is, if the Kill-Team leader doesn't agree, is a stern look and get ignored. If said inquisitor then tried to push and try to wield authority where she doesn't really have it.... well, you know, combat get's pretty hectic, and you never know when a stray bolter round or chainsword might come into contact with said Inquisitor

Now, if she gave the Marines the respect they are due and offers suggestions, requests, and is polite, then, well, that's a different story

Unless your a dumb GM who cant solve a simple problem, I would simply wait for the book that will let you create your own chapters and just make a all female chapter(s) for our ladies to play, after all there are more possibilities using your imagination then just relying on written material to solve ever problem that comes your way, I for one dont stick 100% to the lore's and background histories of what ever game I'm GMing, I like to make the world or universe my own by adding or removing things or even changing something to fit what I or my players want to accomplish. now if my lady players want to play a Space Marine thats no big deal I'll just write-up my Iron Rose's army chapter I did years ago for the 40K mini's into Deathwatch that'll solve my problem.

GlamdringRST said:

Lol, yep because demanding that only men have beards is being a macho meathead rather than simply following a fact of the setting.

I suppose women wanting to play a sororitas only game are being femi-nazis especially if they won't let me play a man in the sisterhood.

I suppose I should be burning my jockstrap for the right to have babies. it's completely sexist that only women can have them. Or are we on the 'sexism only happens to women' fallacy?

Hellebore

Hellebore said:

A quick trip to the local freak show might dissuade you of the notion that only men have beards.

BaronIveagh said:

Testicles then. We are talking mutual exclusivities here - a 'female' cannot have testicles. A hermaphrodite might, but then that's not a 'female'. Social gender and biological sex are two completely seperate things that sometimes happen to overlap.

Hellebore

SinisterSyx said:

And I would say you're in your right to do that. And thanks for accepting that the universe portrayed in your game is not the standard canon 40k universe.

Personally though, I think it encourages a bad habit in roleplaying to say that the universe is mutable for the purpose of making players feel comfortable. I would almost go as far as to say it is bad roleplaying to choose to alter the mechanics of the setting for these purposes. I see no meaningful argument to say that a female space marine actually brings anything useful to the table in the Deathwatch setting. If the character's origin is that of a something rogue or cursed, it is doubtful such a character would do well in the Deathwatch setting (its like saying you are playing an obvious daemonhost in a puritanical inquisitors party). If the universe is altered to say female space marines exist and are common (such as the Ultramarines are actually of mixed gender in structure), then that character will probably act like a space marine, and generally be no different from traditional male space marines (they venerate the Primarch and the Emperor, purge the unclean, know no fear, etc.). Basically, what is trying to be suggested here is an alteration to the setting, for the sake of the players. I see this as going against the spirit of roleplaying.

Now some may say that choice in character is also important. And yes, I agree with this as well, but in that if someone is actually uncomfortable playing a space marine (I would ask them why, seriously?), they do have the option of a powerful ascended character, or a middle range RT character (they might possibly be able to lend a ship to the partys combined strength, I would say thats fairly impressive). Choice is important, until you start to make serious alterations to the canon in the setting used. While I have not read the Wheel of TIme series, someone earlier in this thread mentioned a type of caster that was all female (and there was an explanation as to why no males), I would consider it a great offense to the setting to just throw something like that out the window.

But as I said earlier, any and all are welcome to alter the canon as they see fit for their games. Just please openly state that you are breaking with fluff, instead of fruitlessly arguing that it is possible, despite what is actually written in the book.

i do love the way way that people are using the origional RT TTgame to base their arguments on...... you guys do realise that back then all space marine were genetically altered PENAL legionairs right? and they were policed by the sisters of battle.. so basing your argument on that kinda out dated aint it?? and further more yes of course you can use the my game card but if your going to do that that where do SOB fit in your universe what happened in the age of apostacy? why isnt the millitary arm of the ecclesiarchy ALL female space marines ( they do have next o limitless resorces after all) fundimentally FEMALE SPACE MARINES DONT WORK their very existence breaks so many things in the 40k universe!!!! and just to hammer home the facts.... the emporer created 20 SONS!!! they were to be his generals for his army of anotomically impared(kendals lol) super soldiers who were to be above humanity to protect humanity . yes a SM may reaction in conjunction with human emotions but i think youll find thats mainly because a book about a group of soldiers who dont really need to talk to eachother during combat free time who spend thier free time praying, stripping weapons or training and who have very little conversation in battle due to indocrinated millitary hand signals would make for a boring book where you feel no connection to the characters at all but hey that what indoctrination would do to you.

Blood Pact said:

I agree.

Thats exactly how I see it.

Once you start making changes to the established setting you have to let the players know all the changes. With any sort of fluff-change or reboot you have to examine what other changes that initial alteration will have on other aspects of the setting. For example: In the Planet of the Apes remake we had to accept that the apes now ran on all fours into combat, something that didnt happen in the original. Then we had to accept that all humans could talk, not just astronauts stuck in the future. Well if the humans could talk, could cloth themselves, could think (and based on the casting they could also sing country-western songs fairly well) why were they not more organized? These were no longer the primitive "animals" in the original PotA, and the story became more a story of mankinds evil toward slavery and forced labor instead of mankind's savage wasteof natural resources, mistreatment of animals and careless use of war. And then you have that ending and all the sudden the audience is asking "was this a change for story sake, or a change for change sake?"

If my GM came up and said "there are female space marines in my setting" despite 20+ years of fluff to the contrary, I have to ask myself what else is different to acclimate to this NEW setting.

Perhaps Tyranids now wear funny feather hats and trade in coffee and spices and orks are acceptable player characters because "its not fair that Joe cant play the character he wants."

But the setting has been changed and nothing I know, or have read, or have been told before stands or is guaranteed to be reliable.

Now if we investigate a tech-biologis cult, discover a series of kidnapped female guardsmen and Arbites and track them down to discover they are slowly being turned in a variation of space marines and that a secret clandestine sect of female space marines has existed for thousand of years, well that would fit into established rules, and we would quickly burn the heretics.

There was a time when setting rules took precedence over "players emotional needs", back when men could have 18 (100%) strengths, but elves and females couldnt. Back when Paladins were humans and the worst non-human you could play was a half-orc. You start stretching what is permitted and 10 years later you have a dark heresy campaign with the PCs being a Space Marine, a Genestealer, a Necron, and a Tau Ethereal. Because in D&D you can now play ogres and dragon born and all sorts of nonsense and they can be Paladins and have 20 strengths and so forth.

So if you want female space marines, take them. We get the point. But dont hate us because we stick to the fluff and dont hate GW for making the fluff. And dont seek our approval for your new fluff. Just do it and move on.

Perhaps a sticky thread? Alternate Universes or settings or something.

Piggy backing off what you said, the setting is the setting, if people want female characters why do they need to be "female space marines" or "sisters of battle" there are plenty of ways to work within the context of the setting to create female characters that could accompany the marines. Its the sentiment that even if you want to be flexible in allowing female characters in this particular game there are ways of doing it without compromising the setting. Some have pointed to Inquisitors as a possible avenue and while I'd shy away from elevating a player to an authoritative position in a game more heavily about cohesive team work, its a more reasonable choice than the rewriting aspects of the setting.

My personal choice would be to allow a player desiring to play a female to play a Callidus or other Temple assassin, since assassins: A) Fluffwise are also in service to some of the same organization as the Deathwatch, so its no stretch to be on the same mission, B) Distinctive in their heightend abilities allowing them to keep up with the marines, C) Where the nature of the assassin and her abilities straight forwardly explain the non-cohesive nature of her cooperation with the squad, D) The assassin also adds distinctly different but equally combat centric abilities to the group, so the games plot wouldn't need to be rewritten to accomodate a possibly more "fellowship" centric character.

"Why do you want this so bad ?"

"Because they said I couldn't have it "

(from the movie Men of Honor)

Blood Pact said:

Amen, brother.

Next thing you know, female players in RT are going to demand female Orks because they're uncomfortable with an stereotypical male character, even if as said over and over 40k Orks and WHF Orcs are asexual beings that spawn from spores. I have no problem with female gamers, but to want to change the setting just to play as a female space marine and demanding to play a female space marine or they won't play just urks me. If I was the GM, I'd tell them if you don't like it, tough, you can get out or we can continue on (or start) a Rogue Trader or Dark Heresy campaign where you CAN be a Female Rogue Trader or Navigator..etc.

Manyfist said:

Ha! Judging by a Bloodbowl cheerleader mini I have there is at least one planet which has female Orks. And guess what? Some of them seem to have saggy bosoms. ;-)

Alex

ak-73 said:

Yeah, the ork thing has changed a few times throughout the history of GW. I seem to remember a female ogre once too.

Jesus, this forum seems to be in a circlejerk of feeding off of each others opinions. Apparently, having female space marines will shatter your tiny minds and ruin 40k forever.

Get this: None of your games are more canon than each other. Your grimdark-homphobic-sexist-racist-aryan future of ultimate despair is no more canon than Brighthammer. Why? Because none of this happens in the fluff. Each of you are putting your own little non-canon story arc in 40k.

By the fact that you are individuals (at least I hope the people here have individual thought) , with your own perspective on how 40k is, you're bound to paint 40k in a different way than another person. The fluff itself is quite contradictory, especially if you've read any BL books. CS Goto let some adult IG become a space marine, yet I don't see you guys whining over that.

I don't understand why there is a forum crying session over allowing females to become space marines. Apparently the concept of allowing *gasp* females to be space marines is so mind-blowing and fluff changing that entire forum threads have to drag on about this. I have to ask what is the point of entire threads of agreeing with the same overused solution. Aren't there better, more interesting fluff elements to debate about?

...and you're the guy alone in the corner cause no one wants to touch you.

Its only because of the explicitness that its been stated in the fluff; that women genetically lack what is necessary to become a space marine. The 40k universe though totalitarian are not "homphobic-sexist-racist-aryans," and should not to be confused with the Imperiums xenophobic-specism-anthropocentrism. Its a universe where women can join the military and fight as guardsmen, there is never any mention of races being segregated or marginalized, and there is nothing to say that the Imperiums population claims to be aryan. They just can't be marines because the technology doesn't exist.

My opposition isn't based solely on fluff. My opposition is partially based on the fact that even if it was allowed it doesn't add anything to the game, it only detracts, given the nature of marines. Fluffwise, I'm opposed to it mostly because there are ways of implementing female characters that don't contradict well established aspects of the universe. Space Marines are machoistic aesexuals. So what implication does gender have? You might as well ask your players to use the space to record their social security number, since given the setting both will be equally worthless.

If people want to play alternate universe setting games where they acknowledge they aren't trying to adhere to any form of cannon, go for it; just don't call it something it isn't.

What it comes down to is semantics; if you change the setting its no longer "40K," in the strictest sense; if you have female space marines you're no longer playing "40K." Its no different than if you had a player who wanted to be a jedi, you could allow it, but its definitely a distracting deviation.

Gender keeps coming up but it shouldn't matter; it distracts, it detracts, and does nothing but placate to individual who insist upon the security of gender roles at the expense of the established setting while contributing nothing.

/agree mythos

I agree - most importantly Gender doesn't matter in this game, Space Marines just don't do social situations. Its real simple if you want to change the setting of the game and have female Space Marines - go ahead, no one will stop you and everyone will cheer you on. If you want to find an excuse in the fluff to legitimatize it, you won't find one - Cut and dry says in the rules ALL SPACE MARINES ARE MALE. If you want to change the fluff to your version of the universe again, not going to happen.

aka_mythos said:

Um, I hate to point this out, but, at least in the original legions, this was not the case. (*See Fulgrim)

In fact, it's really not even true now, considering that while some marine chapters do have some... disturbing tendencies, this is not universal (Ultramarines are absurdly disciplined, but do seem to tend toward enjoying reading and fine wines. Space Wolves are absurdly undiciplined and enjoy, apparently, feasting, drinking, and wenching.[why grope women if you're a desexualized masochist?]).

It would suggest that it's the traditions of the chapter, rather then anything to do with geneseed that cause the above traits in certain marines.

Further, space marines officers actually would have to 'do' social occasions, particularly when liasing with civilians such as planetary leaders.

BaronIveagh said:

[Carman voice]

- Respect ma Authorita!

- Sm are males, if you don't like it stick it, I have decided.

- Sm can olny shoot bolters at aliens and heretics and don't do social things, I decided.

- Respect ma Authorita!

[/Carman voice]

BaronIveagh said:

Just to point out aka_mythos said machoistic, not masochist.

I think he meant overly macho.

Seriously, at this point:

re this thread: kill it with fire.

keltheos said:

Seriously does not fit in this thread....

The usage of female as SM as nothing to do with logic or seriousness it's all about who says what last!

Exactly correct... macho asexuals as in they are manly monks.

BaronIveagh said:

Fulgrim ended up the way he did because of daemonic influences. (The daemon was named Viagra...)

When I say macho aesexuals that includes their attitudes towards "feasting, drinking, and wenching" but that isn't the same as seeking sexual relationships. Its not something they'd need or seek. If they did, it would be indicative of chaotic influences, as it was for Fulgrim. Those things are much more about comradery than any percieved gender superiority.

Its never been addressed but I imagine with the excess hormones and chemicals in their blood a space marine probably doesn't function quite right in the sex organ department anyways... that much super steroids makes things shrivel.

aka_mythos said:

You assume a lot here.

afjk87 said:

I really don't want to sound rude in saying this, but have you read the whole thread? Especially about the last 10-15 posts? Aka_Mythos, Peacekeeper, and I all make the case that sure you can play whatever you want in your own games.

Also, I'm fairly sure that none of us have ever made the assertion that we view the contents of our games to be "canon." The goal though, is to play a game, that could be canon. To work within the 40k setting to create something as a group. The players make their characters, and the GM makes the final judgment on what works and what does not. It is clearly stated in the book that the zygote notion is use, therefore no female space marines. As far as contradictory fluff? Sure, it exists, but nothing has explicitly contradicted the zygote detail (at least, to my knowledge).

As far as your statements go about "shatter[ing] your tiny minds," I will not respond to ad hominem, suffice to say that wanting to follow established fluff is for the purpose of what some consider good roleplaying (see previous post discussing the importance of a non mutable setting).

I mean otherwise, I really want to play a Robute Guillman who has healed from his wounds and exited stasis. I want to play a 1st generation genestealer who has been recruited into the space marines.

I still put forward the idea that a female space marine does not bring anything new to the table, therefore a setting change is unreasonable. The notion that a player could be uncomfortable playing a certain character due to setting restrictions is not enough to me to be grounds for altering said setting (at least, when I GM that is the case). Personally, yes, I do try to stick with the established canon. I find it alot better than working with a mutable setting, where enough whining/begging from my players can actually get them what they want.

Anyway, yes, I do find that these arguments go on too long. What bugs me is that those wanting female space marines either:

A. Refuse to accept the RAW on no female space marines

B. Attack those that want to follow established material.

C. Make the argument that women can't/don't want to play male characters.

D. That by default, Space Marines are better than an ascension level or mid range RT character, so not allowing female space marines is unfair to women (extension of C.)

E. Try to argue pseudo science in a fictional universe (extension of A.)

F. Believe that those that reject the idea of female space marines are "forcing" them to not alter the setting in their own game.

G. Choose to call others fluff nazis, while probably being the #1 person here to cite obscure material, and be an absolute stickler for the facts, to the point of disregarding valid arguments for the sake of one overlooked detail (I hope you know who you are).

Or some combination, or variation of the above. Also, it is of course, an incomplete list, so don't give me flack for not getting it perfect.

My responses to each of those are:

A. This is immature, just accept it

B. You can't fault people for wanting to follow rules of the setting.

C. You're just being stupid/bigoted/immature roleplayers

D. You're too much a space marine fan, look at it objectively, investigation skills are useful.

E. ... Not worth a response

F. You're not reading what we're saying.

G. I'd rather not invoke Godwin's law at present.

KommissarK said:

G. Choose to call others fluff nazis, while probably being the #1 person here to cite obscure material, and be an absolute stickler for the facts, to the point of disregarding valid arguments for the sake of one overlooked detail (I hope you know who you are).

Yes, don't you just hate it when those damned facts get in the way? Drives me wild when they derail a perfectly good groundless statement with no basis in them. That tiny over looked detail of the book not supporting what you claim! How DARE it?

KommissarK said:

G. I'd rather not invoke Godwin's law at present.

I'll go back now to my greenstuff practice, I have a SM army to build and paint, and I hope to see some of you at the next gameing convention, where hopefully, my FSM's will be melting some faces along side my titans, Sonya Rubra and Mammeatus Bellicus.