The absolute truth which is implied when you talk about "canonical background" will never be known because of this.

How does that, in any way, suggest that there are absolutes when it comes to 40k canon? It's not my argument. That comes from one of the BL authors, a guy who has worked on a lot of 40k stuff.

Nothing is fixed? That's the whole point! GW could turn around and say the Emperor was actually an alien with the next edition/book/game. They've done crazy stuff like that before. Roboute Guilliman went from being an Imperial Guard commander, a puppet of the High Lords of Terra, to a Primarch and founder of the Ultramarines. The setting went from fantasy-in-space to the grimdark sci fi we have now. Tomorrow there could be an official female SM Chapter. Or maybe the Squats will rise up and wipe out the Tyranids. Maybe the story will be that the Tyranids are actually only the forward forces of a much bigger, deadlier alien menace that will finally bring the Eldar, Tau, and humanity together. Perhaps the entire setting is just a dream in the minds-eye of the dying Emperor and the universe has actually been scoured free of life by the Tyranids.

Is any of that likely? Hell no, but the very message GW is trying to get across is that anything could happen. Anything could be true. Or not be true. Is it just a reason to excuse constant "canon" changes and the contradictions that come from having so many different writers producing material. Maybe. Probably. But GW and BL are the ones putting out this material, so they get to make the rules.

Understand, I'm not saying female Space Marines are canon or even should be. I'm just trying to say...don't rain on someone else's parade for wanting to make the game more fun. Don't bring canon into the discussion when there is no rock solid, ironclad canon to stand on. Everyone just have fun in the cool, FICTIONAL sandbox that we've been given.

Edit: *kicks the forum software*

Sorry, looks like not everything got cut that I tried to remove when going over my previous post. The Roboute Guilliman thing was from a great scenario that I once read about this sort of thing, how propaganda can change the facts if repeated often enough. The story was going too long so I cut it out (most of it, apparently). Wouldn't want anyone to be confused.

Durandal7 said:

If all you need is male tissue and hormones then there's many forms of Intersex that could become marines, and Intersex is a huge 4% of the population (many don't know they are Intersex, you the reader have a 4% chance of being Intersex and not even knowing it!). What if for example a marine chapter recruits from a world with a high Intersex population with a form that doesn't show up easilly on apothecaries scans? The geneseed may react strangely so that rather than becoming vampires, were-wolves or having giant dragon-claws and spikes sticking out of them like other less-plausible genetic oddities already accepted in 40k lore they might just have 1 in every thousand marines turn female part-way through their life. This is not absurd, as it happens right now on earth in humans despite being rare. Here's an article from Australian tv including my friend Zoe

Another possibility is a black shield female marine. A marine who had turned to chaos and turned back to the emperors light. Realm of Chaos Vol 1 Slaves to Darkness says that if you roll Hermaphrodite twice it means an originally male champion or follower has become female and vice versa. This is a very common table result for Slaanesh followers. So a marine that goes down the path of chaos and turns back and strives to atone may well have become female along the way. Now that there is a possibility built entirely on canon sources. The Deathwatch rpg says black shields may be traitor marines seeking atonement. ROC Vol 1 says female chaos marines must and do exist.

Bilateralrope said:

Not so. Realm of chaos, vol 1 Slaves to Darkness. If you roll hermaphrodite twice on the tables it says it results in them being the opposite gender to their original one. Hermaphrodite being such a common mutation/gift that it was one that it was fairly easy to get a miniature for as there were something like 4 or 5 slaanesh marine miniatures at the time with a single breast on one side, sometimes even uncovered by a gap in the power armour and othertimes armoured with a jewel to give the armour a nipple.

Saying, “There are no absolutes,” is an absolute statement ; you may as well say, “There are absolutely no absolutes,” do you see how foolish that sounds? It's a non-statement and self defeating, there must be absolutes. Are there humans in the Warhammer 40k setting? Yes...there we have an absolute. Are the Eldar a space faring race? Yes, that is an absolute. Are Space Marines genetically enhanced humans? Yes. What the writer of the above statement from GW means is about the shifting in lore or a ‘common belief’ within the setting. He means that perhaps it was twenty worlds taken by Chaos in Abaddon’s fifth Black Crusade and not eight as the Imperium says (I just made this up as an example) it was to keep up moral; or maybe Thor was a power mad demigod and the “Age of Apostasy” was his war of aggression to take power but he altered the history books to become a “Hero,” of the Emperor. This doesn’t change the fact, the absolute truth, just the story people tell. Believing a lie doesn't make it truth any more than not believing the truth makes it a lie.

And shifting in lore is not a defeating of absolutes, it is a change in understanding, for example, it was always true that Orks reproduced with spores and were functionally a fungus; however until more recently the Imperial forces thought otherwise and thus what they believed was wrong, not the absolute truth which was only recently discovered. Absolute truths are, it is an absolute fact.

Read the statement again. Hell, just read the first paragraph. No, just one sentence from that paragraph.

The absolute truth which is implied when you talk about "canonical background" will never be known because of this.

Everything you said could be wrong. Or it might be right.

Are there humans in the Warhammer 40k setting?

Maybe. We're certainly told there are. What if these "humans" aren't human like you or I? What if they're an offshoot of the Eldar, broken away many millenia in the past. The fiction of Humanity was created as a means of providing a justification for striking at the Xenos - in this case, the Eldar. Then "Humanity" ran into more hostile aliens and things proceeded from there.

Are the Eldar a space faring race?

They certainly seem to be. Or the Eldar could be extinct and what many perceive as "Eldar" are really a shape-changing race that lived on an Eldar-controlled world and worshiped them as gods. When the Eldar were wiped out, this cult-like mentality led them to assume the forms of their "deities." Or, maybe the Eldar are all sitting on Planet X and what seem to be Eldar are actually solid psychic projections.

Are Space Marines genetically enhanced humans?

Sure. Or maybe they're captured Orks who have been genetically modified and had their brains heavily altered, with fake "human" memories implanted to make them tractable.

Do I like these explanations? Do I expect any of this to be the real "truth?" Of course not. But the quote above quite clearly states that there is no way of knowing the real truth in 40k . Your truth could be different from mine. GW's truth in ten years could be different from its truth today. So, in essence, there is no truth to be had. None of these scenarios seems likely. But then again, I bet when they were first introduced, no one was saying the Genestealers were just the first wave of the Tyranid invasion...yet here we are.

Shifting in lore...that's called a retcon, and it's often (though not always) the result of lazy writing. It happens all the time in American comics (and 40k canon, of course).

It's like being a DC Comic fan and suffering through a universe "reboot" every few years. What seems solid, definite today may be different tomorrow. Batwoman might be a lesbian. Orks might be rampaging fungi. Squats might be...well, poor Squats.

One can only wonder what "truth" we will know tomorrow. The Cat Emperor Protects!

Read my statement again (or for the first time, because honestly if you had read it all you'd know what I mean); you will see towards the end of my post that I said believing wrongly doesn't change the fact that something is true, we could be WRONG, but that does not mean that there is no truth. Or are you honestly saying that there are no absolutes? Because if you are you have checked your brain at the door and should go get it back before posting again (read my first line again if you really thing there are no absolutes at all).

Humans are in Warhammer 40K, I never said "We" humans are in 40K, just a race called humans, they may not be desended from us, you are right, but they are there. And the "Eldar" are space faring, could we be wrong about who they really are? Yes, but what we see as Eldar use space ships... You are arguing something much bigger than the lore of false setting, or else you wouldn't be arguing, I was just saying that simply because its a fluid setting doesn't mean the established lore doesn't matter; but it seems like you are responding as if I hit you in your fundamental beliefs. Which I did not mean to do.

I manage to disappear for just a short time and we're already back on FSMs?

Brand said:

+1

@the OP, I'd suggest either following Kommissar's suggestions. If you end up making 'special' space marines be prepared to deal with the in-universe repercussions to having someone so special and out of place (which could be quite interesting, but such a deviation from established back story may end up overshadowing whatever storyline you have planned).

@TCBC: From an outside, mildly disinterested perspective, you seem to be getting a wee bit more agitated than you're accusing Brand of being. If you ask me, and I know you didn't, you should re-read his statement, which is actually a statement from one of the GW/BL authors. He's agreeing with you partially here, he's saying whatever truth there is in the 40k universe cannot be known, not that there are no absolutes. There is a truth, theoretically, but we can't know what it is for certain because the authors like to come up with new things. Not to say canon serves no purpose, I think Brand was simply saying that we shoulding be crapping on people who break from the currently established GW/BL/FFG canon.

Thanks for the +1, Charmander (I really do love that pic). You managed to sum up things probably far better than I could have.

I wasn't angered by your post, TCBC. I was just responding to your points. Charmander summed up things nicely. There may be truths, but we have no way of knowing them. That kinda defeats the purpose of having them in the first place. That's why we should all just enjoy the sandbox we've been given, have as much fun as possible, and take heart in the fact that the crazy ideas we do come up with are technically just as valid as the potential lies and propaganda we've read.

I'll point out that Magos are another option for a female player, especially since they can pick up Unnatural Strength and Toughness themselves, and eventually get enough Toughness and Armor that they can be compared favourably to something like a Land Raider.

Truthfuilly don't understand why it matters what gender you are, at least in a sexless character like a Space Marine (they are pretty much a pre-pubescent boy's fantasy. I guess that might be an issue in itself). I prefer playing male characters, but if I was going to be in a campaign where all the types of characters were female I would have no problem with that. Say we had a Sisters of Battle campaign. I wouldn't play them any differently because they were female. Truthfully again they are entirely sexless like Space Marines, so the only time gender really does matter in an RPG, ie sex and relationships it doesn't matter, not that they turn up too often anyway.

I remember reading a response to female spacemarines on another forum (librarium-online). It convinced me that really female space marines are redundant. Basically the poster said that given the hypno indoctrination, genetic enhancements and hormone altering treatments that space marines go through the end result of a 'female' spacemarine would not be particularly feminine. In fact they would basically be the same as the marines we have now, which begs the questions whats the point?

Some players, both male and female, don't like to play a character of the opposite gender. I think the biggest reason (at least in my personal experience) is that when someone roleplays he or she likes to imagine being in that role. I would have a hard time playing an amorphous space monster, but I could give it a shot (then again, I'm a GM so I have to roleplay lots of crazy stuff). There are plenty of players who wouldn't find that role appealing.

If you take someone who doesn't want to play something and tell them you're giving them no other options, you're left with either someone dropping from those sessions or a very unhappy player. Unhappy players can destroy a campaign since they aren't invested and that hurts everyone's fun.

I think the thing is, marines really don't have "gender," and to really try and attribute one to them is an exercise in futility. About the only way to observe their gender is in the warrior fraternity notion that they share with their chapter.

Now, I've seen co-ed fraternities that refer to their female members as "brothers," so even then, assuming you somehow have "female" space marines (or rather, an individual who was female back when they were human), I really don't see how that in any way, shape, or form, differentiates them from a "male" space marine.

So either:

A. Stick with fluff, and play a space marine

Or

B. Break fluff, say "female" space marines exist (in any chapter, in roughly 1:1 m/f ratios, and the notion itself is meaningless), and play a space marine.

What you don't want to do, is somehow elevate the "female" status, say its "special," some rogue experiment, or remove the warrior fraternity from a space marine. I really don't think the use ofa black shield, with being "female" as the big secret, is that meaningful, and is rather shallow. Without a chapter, a "space marine" is an abomination at best, a mutant of a human. A space marine is something far beyond the implants and hypno indoctrination, and that is an important distinction to make.

Space Marines absolutely have gender. The process of creating a SM doesn't remove all sexual organs to create some asexual neuter. Whether we're talking about anatomical gender or identity gender, SM's are very definitively male. They still have the organs, and their macho outlook is certainly what could be described as "male."

That isn't an attractive option for some female players. I had a female player who was turned off on the idea of playing DW when she heard about Space Marines. That's why it's good to give other options.

SMs still have urges and feelings. If they were just emotionless robots, I know I certainly wouldn't want to bother playing one.

I wasn't talking physically (more in a sense that I don't think such trivial details matter to a space marine). The thing is, I don't care a single iota about the physical differences between men and women, and how that would work in male and female space marines. If a player really just wants to play a marine that is anatomically female, I would have no issue altering the fluff on the physical aspects, but I would clarify that mentally, the character still needs to fit the "marine" profile. I disagree with the notion of feminine marines, or marines with maternal instincts. Its like saying a paladin in D&D does not need the code of conduct.

I would argue that the "feelings" that a space marine has are distinctly "space marine" feelings, rather than "male" or "female" feelings. Sure, they may be closer or similar to a male in nature, but that's how the fluff is written. Certainly, they do fit the macho ideas of fighting for honor and glory, but I fail to see how a "female" space marine would be any different.

To be a space marine is to be a member of a warrior fraternity, a brotherhood of those few chosen heroes, who serve the Emperor. Any member of that, no matter their physical gender, is going to be referred to as "brother."

If that isn't an attractive option for a female player, then too bad. The same argument can be made for a sister of battle and a male player. And while the nature of combat is a bit stronger in DW, nothing should stop the player from making something other than a space marine.

You might not care about the physical differences, but others do. That's why so many times this issue is brought up.

I don't think anyone is advocating really "feminine" marines; think more Vasquez from Aliens rather than Ripley (though she certainly can kick ass). But just what is the "SM profile?" Apart from being a badass and loyal to the Emperor, there really isn't one. Look at two of the most prominent Chapters, Space Wolves and Ultramarines. Their entire demeanors, how they go about their day-to-day lives and honor the Emperor, are wildly different. Or Black Templars and Gray Knights - a Chapter that sees psykers as foul beings to be either avoided or purged (unless they're absolutely necessary) vs a Chapter made of mind-wiped psykers.

While there's evidence that SMs just have such "warrior-like" feelings, there is evidence that that's not always the case. Ragnar is the perfect example. One of the SW's greatest heroes and yet he felt an attraction to a female Inquisitor despite the hypno-conditioning urging him to focus on his mission. I'm not trying to say sex or romance should be a major part of a DW campaign, just that there is a possibility of such things coming up, especially if the subject in question is being tempted by Chaos.

I completely agree about the Chapter being a Brotherhood. Again, going back to Ragnar, he became squadmates with one of the men responsible for destroying his tribe. Despite the overwhelming urge to kill his former enemy, they eventually learned to work together. There's nothing inherently male or female about that.

Brand said:

Obviously if someone cannot play someone who has different organs than themselves (or refuses to play someone who has the same organs as themselves) but can play the rest of the role then yes, you can allow them to play female Space Marines. However I find the idea that such a person would exist very strange. I can understand not finding the concept of playing a Space Marine very interesting or difficult to do, especially if they are used to playing a more "feminine" type of character, but I would find it hard to believe that someone would want to play that kind of character but would fall down on the particular organs they carry around with them.

Gender IS sex.

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender

Gender encompasses both the physical sex of the person as well as other traits.

Again, no one is calling for "feminine" marines, at least that I've heard.

Have you ever seen the movie "Aliens?" This is how I picture a FSM (sans the stuff like Power Armor and as much as we can have without the genetic enhancements, of course).

To be more physically accurate, I'm thinking you should be looking up pictures of female body builders, but maybe that's just me.

Captain Ventris said:

I would, but I don't think I could find a picture of female bodybuilders firing big guns.

Plus, I like Vasquez not only because of her guns but because of her attitude. She's probably the toughest out of all the space marines in Aliens. When Hudson is crying, "Game over!" she's thinking up ways to try killing more aliens.

Brand said:

And I have seen Aliens. And yes, Vasquez is maybe nearly there, but her sex matters for her character. She almost has to act more tough and "masculine" exactly because she is a woman (I am sure some character(s) say certain things about her being a woman). For Space Marines even that wouldn't be an issue. If there were Space Marines of either sex it would make no difference. They would regard each other identically and it wouldn't be a matter of comment. They would be different sexes, but would essentially share the same gender: a form of asexual masculinity (and not in the macho sense). Vasquez is probably a better model of how a female Imperial Guardsman would be like in a mixed sex unit.

And I have seen Aliens. And yes, Vasquez is maybe nearly there, but her sex matters for her character. She almost has to act more tough and "masculine" exactly because she is a woman (I am sure some character(s) say certain things about her being a woman). For Space Marines even that wouldn't be an issue. If there were Space Marines of either sex it would make no difference. They would regard each other identically and it wouldn't be a matter of comment. They would be different sexes, but would essentially share the same gender: a form of asexual masculinity (and not in the macho sense). Vasquez is probably a better model of how a female Imperial Guardsman would be like in a mixed sex unit.

I don't think her sex means all that much to her. There are other females in the group (they just don't live as long or have as much screen time) and they don't act like Vasquez. There's a female medic who seems normal and the dropship pilot ("In the pipe, 5 by 5.") who, while she seems to be pretty tough, is nowhere as intense as V, either.

I think how different SMs regard each other depends entirely on how the person behind it wants it to be. I could easily see a FSM Chapter that looks on the others groups as brothers, yet another version where the FSMs actually see themselves as superior. It's really all up to the person creating things. That's the fun of getting to play in the 40k sandbox.

And, while it seems the vast majority of SMs show no interest in things like sex, there are examples to the contrary (I'm thinking Ragnar again here). I could easily see this as having a lot to do with how much freedom a Chapter allows, possibly having something to do with their hypno-indoctrination and how strict they are as far as daily life goes. I could see a Space Wolf like Ragnar, for example, having the possibility of such feelings whereas a Black Templar would never harbor such thoughts.

Brand said:

Hudson: Hey Vasquez anyone ever mistake you for a man?

Vasquez: No. Anyone ever mistake you for one?

Drake: Your just too bad!

Seemed appropriate!

Anyway the Aliens analogy isn't a good one because the Marines from Aliens are more like Cadians or Catachans.

Marines psychology including their sexual and gender based politics are not really focused around the same issues that we are. I thin kthat the extensive physical and psychological engineering a Marine would undergo would essentially make the difference between a female and male marine moot.

Or to put t another way exactly how would you play a female marine differently? Vasquez challeneged our gender stereotypes, she was twice a bad ass because she was a woman. However the character itself was not particularly feminine comapred to say Ripley who was a more nuanced character.

Anyway the Aliens analogy isn't a good one because the Marines from Aliens are more like Cadians or Catachans.

Aliens was about the best analogy I could think of off the top of my head - it has badass space marines, both male and female. There really isn't a perfect analogue to the 40k Space Marines.

Marines psychology including their sexual and gender based politics are not really focused around the same issues that we are. I thin kthat the extensive physical and psychological engineering a Marine would undergo would essentially make the difference between a female and male marine moot.

And if you wanted to use that idea if you made female Space Marines, go for it. Even among male SMs, though, there can be a lot of differences, particularly if you look at members from different Chapters. An Ultramarine likely wouldn't fit in too well if you dropped him in the middle of a Space Wolf drinking hall.

Some SMs are pious. Monkish. Others are brash and don't hesitate to tell it like it is.

Or to put t another way exactly how would you play a female marine differently? Vasquez challeneged our gender stereotypes, she was twice a bad ass because she was a woman. However the character itself was not particularly feminine comapred to say Ripley who was a more nuanced character.

I wouldn't really treat FSMs as "feminine," though if someone wanted to use such characters, good for them. I would take first the traits that are basically inherent to all SMs - larger than normal, incredibly strong, loyal to the Imperium, well-trained killing machines. From there, it would all depend on just where these FSMs are from. Are they part of an existing Chapter? Something new? What sort of homeworld do they hail from? They might be brash barbarian warriors more akin to Fenrisians, in which case they might act more like Space Wolves. Do women serve as warriors there, or are they forced to fight for survival through some other means? Are they the inhabitants from some hive, forced to learn to survive and fight and scavenge just to live? All of these sorts of questions would go into determining the general mindset and demeanors of such a group. And, as I said before, there will of course be differences even within a Chapter.