BaronIveagh said:

Frateris Templars were nothing like Sisters. They were simply soldiers who fought for the Church. They did not have anything close to the spiritual purity that SIsters do or their combat prowess. There was a reason chose the Daughters to be his personal guard besides them being women.

I have thus far stayed out of all the discussions about female marines, so apologies if I covering the same ground as someone else previously may have.

According to the Bible, Jesus had 12 disciples, all of whom where male. Now if you wanted to roleplay Jesus and the twelve disciples, you have to agree to play a male character. Oh sure, you can play a version where Mary Magdalene was the 13th disciple, but that's not canon. Still, it's your game and you can do what you want. Just don't try to convince the rest of us that canon needs to be altered to accommodate the Mary as 13th disciple view.

40k is a fictional setting in which there are no female space marines. That is simply a fact of the setting. If you don't like it, you can alter it for your game. Nobody will come to your house and arrest you for house ruling the existence of female space marines. However, to think that the designers would for some reason agree to alter their canon simply because a vocal group of fans insist that they do so is ludicrous. You can be as loud as you want, but the odds of 40k being officially rewritten to accommodate female space marines is about as good as the odds of the Bible being rewritten to accommodate female disciples.

The Frateris Templars weren't even equiped to the same standard as the Sisters of Battle.

They were essentially Imperial Guardsman with a different name, from everything (admitedly not much) that was written about them. Perhaps there were a lot of priests and other religious leaders around to make them extra fanatical, but that doesn't make a real difference. And in case it needs to be said again, the Chantry Guards of the Temple Tendency are merely their spiritual successors, not literal.

mac40k said:

40k... Bible... JEBUS!!!! ARRGHHHH!!!!! Must not comment!!

Canon!! argghh... Fanatical single minded creationsit! Nooo!!!

Again if you don't like it, it's all cool as the many threads have always said "Every one knows it not 100% Canon" but what is the closest 98.999999999999999999999999% as close as can be...

Ouff tired my poor mind, Jebus save me, oh the humanity!

@The OP suggestion of the 2 hidden chapters

Yeah, you kind of even state why it would not work too well in the Deathwatch setting there anyway. Probably one of the key things to build a space marine based RPG would be to enable the choice of chapter for a character (this is what "race" effectively is in other RPGs). In the 40k background, there are few ways to do this well, the deathwatch being one of the better ways. It sure beats "you all meet each other in a tavern." As such, to remove the ability to use the deathwatch (by saying that the lost chapters (if they still exist) do not second marines to the deathwatch), shoots the ability to use multiple chapters in the foot. So which is more important, choice in gender, or choice in chapter? Of course, a theory could be made that the lost chapters actually still exist and are active within the imperium, they just don't realize it/nobody else realizes it and they don't tell. I've especially heard this with reference to the DoW series Blood Ravens (of course, I believe the theory is a load of crap, but to each their own), as they often refer to their "forgotten primarch." So yes, with the right kind of work, you can make it happen. Of course, I find the idea of the "lost chapters" to be best used as a narritive device in the grim dark 40k universe. It's like how the game is set on the very brink of things going totally bad. Its a mystery for the sake of being a mystery.

@The Frateris Templars idea

Not this again, really, I mean come on. You know full well that they don't exist in a legitimate (non-heretical) sense by the time period any 40k game occurs. I don't see this as being described as 37k - age of apostasy. Besides, if a player wanted to play one, why not use the cleric or the guardsman career (or some custom mix of the two)? See, the problem is this is encouraging selecting the mechanical career first, and then choosing the background second, when it usually is healthier (read less munchkiny) to do that in reverse.

@at the argument in general

Too many people associate being a space marine as just having the implants. It is more than that, it is having the implants, and having the chapter. With the chapter being far more important than having the implants.

But really, is it good roleplaying to want to toss out a given detail of the setting because it is inconvenient?

But really, this is a solved problem.

If you don't like it, house rule it.

All I kindly ask is that you please don't label what you are doing as strictly in line with the fluff (given the zygote argument used in the fluff).

@ saying its not 40k being a bad thing

I see where you are coming from, but then I have to ask, if we take things away, or add new things, at what point does it become something different? Ref sorties paradox/heaps of sand, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

KommissarK said:

There are some established difficulties with that given the canon, as Cailieg has noted in another thread. Plus, with military campaigns it can quite literally be "You all meet each other in a tav... briefing room."

KommissarK said:

I think that you're throwing the baby out with the bath water here. "40k" tends to mean more than just the "Dark Millennium," but rather encompasses the entire setting. On the other hand, this particular (partial) solution does not tend to work past the Age of Apostasy, but I think that is broadly besides the point.

KommissarK said:

That's not quite what the game seems to encourage, since Class is the first "choice" that you've got to make. And in my experience there's a whole lot of "rules iceberg" to the choice of Path. One character concept that I tried to throw together with DH became an almost impossible choice between one or the other classes because of the degree of specialisation for each. It ended up to be very much a "lesser of two weevils" situation and I was not particularly happy with the character given the concept.

Of course, that's just in my experience of the DH system, which, as noted elsewhere, is not exhaustive. Certainly, though, I don't think that it is as clear cut as being suggested here.

KommissarK said:

This strikes me as very much a "YMMV" consideration. What one personal considers quintessential to the setting another might consider superfluous. (Of course, there are some "truths" which seem to be fairly universally accepted.)

KommissarK said:

Amen to that!

KommissarK said:

I would imagine that the desire for people that are believers or otherwise proponents of the idea of "female" Space Marines is that it is as coherent with the 'fulff' as possible given the obvious caveat that it ignores or tries to get around the "male only" statement.

KommissarK said:

And that's why it is subjective, so saying "not really 40k" becomes as relatively meaningless (and difficult) as trying to define just what 40k is . Then again, I've never been a huge fan of the aesthetic argument, or where someone might say, "If it's not covered in brass, then it's not 40k!"

With that said, I would probably end up suggesting that if it isn't recognisable as the 40k universe—that being a combination of features such as history, components, etc.—then, well, maybe the term "not really 40k" applies. Ask yourself this, though: Is the addition of "female" Space Marines sufficient to distort an interpretation of the 40k universe to make it completely unrecognisable?

What about something a bit more major? What if, in the question of "Adeptus Me-CAN'T-icus" (the Tech Priests cannot really understand the technologies that they employ) or the "Adeptus Me-CAN-icus" (they can understand the technologies), someone decides to come down as solidly "CAN." None of this Leibowitz stuff, but scientists dressed up in robes with a fetish for prosthesis and a goal of technological transendence/transhumanism? Is that unrecognisable as the 40k universe?

I've got a feeling that you would have to do a great deal to make the 40k universe completely unrecognisable, which tends to place most of the "it's not 40k!" arguments in the realm of aesthetic judgements and subjective, personal evaluations. Either that or the nerd-rage of 20-odd year-old teenagers.

Kage

When a character concept falls between two classes (happens in other systems too), that's when you gently ask the GM if you can play a hybrid class.

And about it's not 40K anymore - what's the point? If my interpretation wasn't 40K in the eyes of someone else... so?

Personally I see no reason in being a literalist, trying to stick as closely as possible to Canon, other then trying to make a competition out of it and trying to best others in being more faithful to Canon.

If that was the mind-set of someone (and I am not saying it is, mind you), I would have little positive to say about such.

Alex

ak-73 said:

I did not imply that it didn't occur in other systems, merely that was my experience when creating a character in the DH system, i.e. it wasn't quite as friendly to a concept-driven character generation, at least for me, as others have argued. At the same time, for those that know the system intimately they're able to see through the melee of the tier-based skills, talents, traits, to be able to create really great concept-driven characters because the crunch becomes transparent. For want of a metaphor, it's like beating one of those Fighting Fantasy novels by arming you with a whole lot of fingers so that you can backtrack to the appropriate selection. Not knowing the system just means that you've only got the regular number of fingers.

Of course, GM-moderated character generation works much better in my experience, but that wasn't the case here. Soooo... there you have it.

ak-73 said:

You're functionally talking about the hobbyist equivalent of a "thick skin," which then leads to the question: "Why do people continue to throw around the statement that something is or isn't 40k?" Is it just to marginalise an interpretation in the eyes of their peers or fellow forum-ites?

That's why I'm not a fan of seeing the phrase used but, well, we've all got something that throws up the 'ole red flag. For Nathan Dowdell and others it is seeing the term "fluff" and "crunch," while for others it is "female Space Marine" threads.

ak-73 said:

One might imagine that one reason is to make a creation that "feels right," or be more readily accepted in the hobbyist community. You can see some elements of it on the various 40k discussion forums.

Not sure that it is about being the best, but I guess that everyone is going to have a different answer to this one depending on just how they use the 40k universe, or even what they create (RP scenarios/campaigns, fiction, fan supplements, etc.). One imagines that there is a different burden of coherence to the established canonical material in each. YMMV, though.

Kage

Kage2020 said:

Concept-driven chargen in an unfamiliar system ideally should always be assisted by the GM who supposedly is more familiar with the mechanics. In fact in such cases it's best to simply describe the GM what kind of char one envisions and let him assign starting skills and talent, etc. Characteristics (attributes) can be semi-randomized then.

Alex

Isn't the enjoyment of the players the most important thing when comes to this kind of thing?

If one has a player who has a great idea for something not canon, there are thousands of ways to say YES before you slam the book closed and dramatically pronounce "It's not written and so it shall not be thus!" If it's going to be more fun for everyone (the GM too btw) to include their non-canonical suggestions, then include away I say. Regardless of the suggestion, if it won't be more fun for all involved, well then, that's where I draw the line.

As a GM I don't want to feel I have to read everything ever published to "know" how to play.

As a player I don't want to be told "NO" all the time.

If a player asked me to play as a female Space Marine in my game, this would be my response if I knew my player could handle the further difficulties I'd like to impose in roleplay due to his/her choice: "You are a freak. Females account for less than 0.0000001% of all space marines. In fact, you have never met another female space marine in your life and know of no written record of any reknowned female battle-brother. The testosterone treatments, physical conditioning and the rigorous training regime mean that there isn't much left that is feminine of you. You have the physique of a world-class body-builder. You are unlikely to ever conceive due to the physical conditioning, not that you'd ever want to as the hardships and sacrifices you have made mean to much to just breed. In your power armour, most consider you male from your strong-jawed appearance, commanding presence and their own prejudicial social conditioning that all space marines are male. Those that do know your true sex have all had strong reactions - and who can blame them - many in the order simply will not allow females into their Chapter, but you were different and for that some secretly despise you, waiting for you to fail. Some openly defy you. You hide the shame of your sex from others, not for your own pride but for the pride of your Chapter. You are happy to serve. But there are other marines, like your battle-brothers in your kill team, who have seen your bravery first hand and have learned to accept you for what you truly are: a fellow battle brother."

Just as a quick clarification for Kage:

That's not quite what the game seems to encourage, since Class is the first "choice" that you've got to make.

No it's not. Your homeworld (and in Rogue Trader, the entirety of the rest of the Origin Path) comes before your Career (or "Class" as you put it). Your Career is the last thing you chose on, pretty much, in the character creation process. It's very simple to come up with a background first, and then build your character. I do it all the time. Making unconventional characters, as I know many of your concepts are, is indeed more difficult, because the system generally isn't built for "very" unconventional characters. Meanwhile, books like "Inquisitor's Handbook", "Into the Storm" and "Radical's Handbook" make it even easier to build your background before adding your Career on. It might not be easy to do in the system, but it's more than possible, which leaves a little of the fault for "not being able to make a background before the character" at the feet of the player, in my opinion.

torquemadaza said >>>

Isn't the enjoyment of the players the most important thing when comes to this kind of thing?

Always. Though I think that the GM is allowed to get some fun out of it, too.

MILLANDSON said >>>

No it's not. Your homeworld (and in Rogue Trader, the entirety of the rest of the Origin Path) comes before your Career (or "Class" as you put it). Your Career is the last thing you chose on, pretty much, in the character creation process.

You are, of course, correct. To be fair, though, the first selection is Homeworld, the second is random generation of statistics (which can be influenced by concept but can actively war with a concept unless another method of generation such as the "point buy" homebrew rule), and then it is time to choose a Career Path. While I would not consider the prior stages of RAW character generation as insignificant, I would submit that the act of selecting a Class/Path and then "levelling up" is far more significant than the prior stages. I therefore stand by my original commentary though once against must note that I'm not criticising the system, merely pointing out how the commentary of KommissarK might be considered contentious or even erroneous.

MILLANDSON said >>>

It's very simple to come up with a background first, and then build your character. I do it all the time.

I will draw your attention back to the analogy that I made about system familiarity and, further, the reference to GM-assisted character generation and my preferences thereof. Concept-driven character generation is easy when you're not having to deal with system contrivance when you are a "novice" at that system.

MILLANDSON said >>>

Making unconventional characters, as I know many of your concepts are, is indeed more difficult, because the system generally isn't built for "very" unconventional characters.

Well, in terms of the 40k setting in general I don't think that they're that unconventional. That they might not be covered by the concept/premise of DH is, however, a very valid point. Thus my "difficulties."

MILLANDSON said >>>

Meanwhile, books like "Inquisitor's Handbook", "Into the Storm" and "Radical's Handbook" make it even easier to build your background before adding your Career on.

Again, you are correct. I would have described it slightly difference in that they expand your (limited?) options which indeed does make finding the right approximation to a concept that much easier, though it does require pouring through numerous other books (which I'm used to, of course!). This is once again not a criticism since the obvious strength to this is that the game is highly themed and highly "noob" friendly.

MILLANDSON said >>>

It might not be easy to do in the system, but it's more than possible, which leaves a little of the fault for "not being able to make a background before the character" at the feet of the player, in my opinion.

This, on the other hand, I will take a bit more umbrage to since you seem to be implying that it is the job of a player that is familiar with the setting to redesign the system to allow for character concepts that are appropriate (caveat: subjective term) to the setting, more so when they are unfamiliar with teh system and in need of GM assistance. What you seem to be instead suggesting is that it is the fault of the player, in the absence of the GM (which is how many of the PbP games on Dark Reign tend to go at least initially), that their 40k concepts do not subscribe to the conceit of the system in terms of power level, options. This clearly is a "chicken and egg" argument.

Once more, though, much of these options are ameliorated with GM assistance. As I said, though, in my experience that wasn't the case, i.e. didn't happen except punitively ("that is an illegal option," etc.). It might not explore the full situation but surely that is what "my experience" suggests? That is, the specific arraying of events that lead to a given interpretation?

Kage

Kage2020 said:

I didn't say that. I said that, in the majority of cases, backgrounds can fit perfectly with the game (especially when supplements are used) if their background is actually fitting with the power level (and therefore experience) of the character at the time of character creation. Obviously a Tech-Priest who uses arcane warp-tech to almost appear as a techno-sorcerer won't work at Rank 1, but that isn't because the game is at fault, that is because such a concept is obviously of a higher power level/experience than Rank 1 is intended to represent. That character concept, then, would obviously be better suited to a higher level campaign. The same would apply for a special forces Guardsman who is a specialist in infiltration, security breaking, demolitions, exfiltration, assassination, etc, or, using other genre/RPG concepts, you wouldn't give a level 1 Barbarian in DnD a background that he has killed dragons and slain kings, because that sort of background doesn't suit the level of power that the game is running at at that time. Obviously the character can grow into that background/concept as they advance and gain XP/knowledge/etc, but you couldn't reasonably expect a brand new Rank 1 character to start there.

MILLANDSON said:

Woooh... There's a whole lot of assumption in this post and, perhaps, a certain level of bristling protectiveness for the DH system that has been noted before? I think so, but YMMV. At least it seems to me that there is a great deal of misrepresentation based upon former knowledge and presenting information out of context. In the specific character concept that you have are referring to it is true that it is beyond the assumed "power level" for a level 1 campaign. On the other hand, if you were to produce the full story and indicate that it was a concept that was created for a level 4 campaign? How does that alter your argument? Is that once again the blame of the player, especially one that wasn't intimately familiar with the system and the conventions encoded within (we might arguably call them "GMs")? Does the idea that even though it was a "level 4" campaign alter the fact that still the character concept couldn't be realised?

I'm just wondering if a new player should be directed to the portion of the rules that defines that, despite the fact that their character concepts should be inherently capped or otherwise restricted by their being... Meh, not sure. Interesting? Cool? 40k appropriate? Are there specific guidelines that describe the "power level" of of the different mechanical levels? Is it possible that Cailiegs's suggestion of game conceit (gamism) with reference to Deathwatch applies to DH, or the idea that game does not simulate setting? Are we getting into the "mook" discussion once again?

Seriously, though, I'm not slamming the system. I'm so frickin' tired of this misdirection that seems to be all smoke and mirrors. What I am merely suggesting is that the comments that suggested that following the RAW is inherently munchkin are not entirely correct. Further, are you merely establishing the system is being predicated upon "D&D" conventions?

Seriously, mis-direction is not useful. My experiences are their sum and the current it. In this case that means the concept was not appropriate for the mechanics of the game, not that they were inappropriate for the setting.

There might be a point there.

Kage

what I don't understand is why people want female space marines? What is the aim, what is hoped to be achieved?

If you want a female in the game - there are many ways to do it without running rough-shod over the fluff - Inquisitor, assassin, sister of battle etc.

To me it feels like someone wants to munchkin their way to special powers and seems totally unnecessary.

There are many fixed systems where you are required to play a specific race/gender/class, for example Pendragon - everyone is a male knight. Yes you could have an atilla style character, but it didn't fit in with the knightly ways in the main, page > squire > knight. (I know they introduced female characters later on in an expansion but it wasn't a knight.)

Astartes is based on knightly orders in many ways, and as such is strictly male.

However, it is your game universe so you can do what you wish, but I don't see the need for 20 million threads and pages on people justifying their munch.

Taken from the Lexicanum Deathwatch article:

"Usually, a Deathwatch team is led by an Inquisitor, but in extreme circumstances, a Deathwatch Captain or Librarian may take command of the unit."

This gives me, and others I am sure, the convenient loophole of having a female Inquisitor who is given free reign to boss the Kill Team around as she sees fit. While they may not agree with what's being said, they are duty/honor bound to follow her orders to the letter except in extreme circumstances.

I forsee myself using a female Inquisitor to lead the team in many situations, as well as a female eye-in-the-sky/tactical advisor feeding the team intel as they go along from a secure position such as a ship hanging in orbit.

torquemadaza said:

To a point, indeed - but it is also the GMs duty to maintain setting integrity. Merely because a pc wants to do something does not mean he should automatically be given the green light. If one of the characters in my DH game wants to play Harry Potter's second best friend from Hogwart's, complete with goblin sidekick and owl familiar, I don't care how much fun he would have doing so - he is not going to play that character in a 40k game. (sure you could devise a 40k variant, but the suggestion here being that is not what this theoretic pc wants) Nor, if the pc wants to play an Orc Inquisitor of the Ordo Xenos, is he going to get an okay from the vast majority of GMs ... because these concepts break with the integrity of the setting. The act of agreeing to play in a specific setting is something of a contract between the players and GM which states they agree to play characters appropriate to the world they've chosen and the GM agrees to make that experience as enjoyable, faithful, and unique to that setting as he can. Otherwise everyone had might as well play in generic setting X - where fairy space marines and dolphin knight templars are the norm - and be done with it.

Artemesia said:

I don't think anyone is saying women are bad, or unwelcome in the game, so I doubt a group of Space Marine PCs would have any reason to balk at this. If they are assigned to an Inquisitor, whatever his or her sex, they will carry out their orders with equal zeal because that is what they are supposed to do. A few of the characters *might* have a problem with it, if those characters are particularly misogynistic, but they are duty bound to follow that Inquisitor's orders and therefore should not balk at doing so. A female tactical advisor should, likewise, be no less valuable than a male to the team - so far as I know Space Marines do not hate women, there simply are no female Space Marines.

@Kage: There is always the mechanic of Elite Advances or of suggesting a custom Elite Advance package to your GM. If your GM does refuse that, it seems to be more a GM than a rules issue. I would like to gently add that you have a tendency to talk in the abstract which can make a debate of your concrete personal experiences difficult.

What character concept have you concretely devised and why didn't it work out in DH?

FatPob said:

We need a FAQ, for what you said has been said before, I'm afraid. The state of debate wrt that is that the desire for female Space Marines is wanting to play a female and be part of the organization. Having power armour, etc alone will not do to some it seems.

Perhaps a matter of prestige. Or not wanting to feel excluded.

Alex

Jack of Tears said:

I am more or less attempting to put forth (terrible, poorly thought out) ideas for potential roles for females that are no less important than the Kill-Team's for those who are a little more strict on how much the fluff is allowed to bend. Or in this case, break. It wasn't meant to be taken as as misogynistic or implying that Space Marines are woman haters, so I apologize if it came off as such.

I've put forth my thoughts on the female space marine issue in other threads, and I figure it saves a lot of headaches on both sides if I just stay out of it. Contributing to the argument, even with something as reasonable as "it's your game, do whatever you want", seems to anger at least one part. I figure if neither side is willing to budge then what's the point in trying to appeal to either?

Sorry, I couldn't resist posting

"Two options for Female Space Marines" ? No, you really only need ONE !

=> DO IT ! It's a RPG, you are allowed to modify anything as you see fit, and call it "cannon" in your game. Why bother finding little loopholes in the BG to justify it, when you can just put it there and say it's always been ?

Heck, you can do that without even needing the approval of the whole community. Awesome power you have at your table.

Now, I admit, I don't know what difference there would be between a male and a female Space Marine, when gender doesn't really (or at all) matter for them.
You are one of the finest soldiers Humanity can field. You have been created through the genius of the God-Emperor. You fight His fiercest ennemies, on the worst battlegrounds, with the best stuff and training. You spend your days fighting, praying, meditating, training, taking care of your equipment.

When you put on your armour, only one gender remains in the end : you are a Space Marine.

It's not as if a Marine (wether male or female) would end the day in a bar (non Space Wolves one, at least), making Charm test with the nice girl/boy in the corner.

It's DW, not DR or RT where it would make a difference.

Ah ... well the way I read it seemed as though you were saying "heh, I'll show those Space Marine PCs a thing or two by making them answer to a woman!" My fault for misinterpreting what you were going for there. Personally I see no reason why a female PC shouldn't be placed in a position as important as the male Space Marines -any number of ways that could be done have already been suggested, and your addition of the tactical "eye in the sky" simply adds another. (though that might get boring for a player)

Though "making the Space Marines answer to the female Inquisitor" does arbitrarily place one player as party leader, whether they want it or deserve it ... so that is certainly something to be careful with. (some people just don't play good party leaders - I have known more than my share over the years)

Well, party leader is forced upon a player one way or another with the Squad Leader function, if I remember correctly.

Tactical Advisor is an NPC part. I try to never give any player a backseat role, but I feel that just because the character isn't controlled by a player doesn't make the role any less important.

Jack of Tears said:

Strange - I took his comments to mean "group" instead of just players. As long as everyone (GM and players) is having fun, it doesn't really matter, does it? Personally, I don't see the need for female space marines - I'm familiar with the setting and comfortable with it as is. However, I also don't have any problems if a GM and/or player wanted to delve into that character concept. The setting is a sandbox/toolbox that people can use as much, or little as needed.

To be honest, I don't understand how this topic has generated the amount of traffic it has.

AJC

Im still upset that you have no official rules for fully sanctioned and legitimate members of the Imperium (Ratlings, Ogryns) and yet you can play a freaking ork or kroot.

Sure N0-1-h3r3 made some house rules for these fellas that work quite well, andI hope he gets to make them for reals later. But here we are whinning about a 40K non-fluff concept and being ok.

And to the statement of "isnt the point of the game that the players have fun." Yes it is. But remember the GM is a player as well and if he or she doesnt feel comfortable altering the way they see the 40K universe (ie no female space marines) it is unfair to force him or her to change for a player.