Are there female Missionaries?

Dont see any reason against them.

But Missionaries dont feature too heavily in the tabletop game, so its not something id really know.

I don't see any reason why not.

As I recall, there's an advanced missionary career in Edge of the Abyss that is illustrated with a female character.

I don't believe that all clerics have to be male. Additionally, Blood of Martyrs for DH explicitly states that there are female sororitas orders of all kinds over and above the ones already mentioned (famulous, Dialogous etc), and these could include missionary orders.

Blood of Martyrs gives 2 female SubSector Cardinals for the Calyxis-Sector so the Ecclesiarchy is obviously not the catholic church in this regard.

Lightbringer said:

"A little-known group amongst the peoples of the Imperium, the Orders Sabine operate at the very edges of human space, perhaps only returning to Terra or Ophelia VII once in a Sister Sabine's lifetime. The Orders Sabine accompany the Missionarus Galaxia on missions to newly rediscovered human worlds, and they specialise in infiltrating those often regressed and primitive societies that it is believed would oppose the arrival of the Imperium. Sisters Sabine often set themselves up as prophets of the Emperor, preaching the Imperial Cult in secret or fomenting revolt against the religious leaders of a world. When the Missionarus Galaxia arrives and announces its presence to the world's peoples, the Sisters Sabine will have prophesised such an event, and will lead those natives sympathetic to the Imperial Creed in a sudden and deadly coup against their leaders. Through their work, the Sisters Sabine are often cut off from the Imperium for a great many years, and many have the appearance of having 'gone native', adopting the clothing, language and manners of the culture they are infiltrating. It is only when her true purpose is revealed that the Sabine will throw off her disguise and become, once again, a pious servant of the Emperor."

But yeah, Clerics can be male or female - the Ecclesiarchy has no general laws regarding the gender of its clergy, so the subject is pretty much left to the local customs of the respective diocese (i.e. they won't send a female priest to a world where women are suppressed). The same should apply for Missionaries, who are just another sub-group. The studio material only talks of the "men" in its ranks, but I would consider this an oversight similar to how the fluff mostly also only talks about the "men" of the Imperial Guard.

"Although much of the galaxy is now the domain of the Emperor, there are still countless worlds yet to see his light. It is the goal of the Missionarus Galaxia to bring the Imperial Creed to these lost worlds, to spread the wisdom of the Emperor and expand the Adeptus Ministorum.

The Missionarus Galaxia works in a number of ways to meet these ends. At least one Missionary is sent with every exploratory vessel, in case evidence of human life is encountered. If the Missionary does come across a lost community, it becomes his job to learn as much about their culture and forms of worship as he can. As he does, the Missionary must also try to teach the doctrines of the Imperial Creed to the natives. This can be a very long process, involving the substitution of the Emperor for the settlers' own dominant deity and inserting Ministorum practices into the religious ceremonies of the natives. He must remove the more barbaric and less desirable aspects of the native creed (such as blood sacrifice) and is also responsible for identifying any other undesirable traits, like residual genetic mutation, Chaos worship or alien dominance.

In some cases it may take several generations of natives and Missionaries until the Missionarus Galaxia is satisfied with the state of the inhabitants' religion. Early Missionaries coded prophecies and prepared omens into their teachings, which can be exploited by later Missionaries to gain themselves more of a foothold. Of all the departments of the Ministorum, the Missionarus Galaxia is one of the most free and undisciplined, and the men within its ranks value initiative, courage, tolerance and intelligence above raw faith and inflexible dedication to the word of Ecclesiarchal lore."

yes. likely a lot more then the men would like. seeing female no matter what world your on would like nothing els then too tell other ppl how too do everthing meaning also who and what too believe in!!

joke joke (well mostly) lol

While there will be sexism on various Imperium planets, I'm only aware of two areas where Imperium policies discriminate by gender:

1 - Space Marines will always be male.

2 - Sisters of Battle will always be female.

It's possible to argue that sexist policies on planets will skew the gender ratios for the wider Imperium. Given that history shows such policies to almost always favour males, there will be more males than females in most of the Imperiums hierarchy.

So, apart from SM, SoB or Ork characters, any character can be of either gender.

(i.e. they won't send a female priest to a world where women are suppressed)

Maybe, maybe not. If the person deciding who to send doesn't like the planets sexist policies (which make half the population unable to join the guard and die in service to The Emperor*), they might send female priests to change that. Especially on a world that is still being converted to the Imperial Creed.

On the other hand, if someone is from a sexist planet, they might chose to strengthen sexist policies on planets they convert to the creed.

*Not to mention the problems that will come up should the world need help fighting off an invasion and gets sent female or mixed guard regiments.

The audio play Fireborn by Nick Kyme features a female novice in the ecclesiarchy who wasn't part of the Sororitas.

Bilateralrope said:

Or it's a political thing and such assignments happen because Bishop A doesn't like Confessor B, knowing he or she will get into trouble with his/her ideas there...

Yeah, there's a lot of room to maneuver. Case by case basis. I don't think the Imperium or the Ecclesiarchy would get involved as organizations, though. Not their job - as long as the Adeptus Munitorum gets 100% of its tithe in bodies and the world in question doesn't block off-world transfers of future progena.

Bilateralrope said:

Actually, that sounds like the perfect opportunity to promote the equality of genders.

Arnu said:

Mhmm. Although this is in line with the above observations, I recommend caution when looking at licensee publications for fluff - there have been too many contradictions to studio canon slipping through the editors' fingers. Enough so that former and present GW writers and officials (including the Head of Publishing and Gav Thorpe) pointed out that they don't care what's written in some novel and that only studio material (codices, army books, ...) counts.

That's not to say that Black Library or FFG writings don't give some very cool inspirations - I've been adopting a lot and generally only dismiss things when they somehow conflict with GW material. Personally, I think that this approach results in "the best of both worlds". In the end, this is a question that everybody has to answer for himself.

Lynata said:

Quite important actually. I hope FFG would stop contradicting GW products. I mean the flat out contradicting type. Not the open to intepretation type.

Voronesh said:

Given that:

1) GW certifies all licensee material - it only approves it if it fits with what GW want as part of their IP;

2) GW states that all stuff for their IP is canon, regardless of the source, as long as it is officially licensed - stuff made by GW itself is of exactly the same "canon level" according to GW as FFG, Sabretooth Games, and Black Library stuff; and

3) GW studio fluff contradicts itself more than any other type of fluff (ahem - Matt Ward),

I really don't see the problem.

Some GW studio guys have previously said on places such as Farseer that GW intentionally makes the fluff contradictory, because it is meant to be an era where information is scattered and the truth is known to only a few. Therefore, complaining about GW IP being contradictory is like saying "I do't like bacon, because I want it to be like egg" - you are arguing for something that does not, and has pretty much never, existed - a coherent, non-contradictory setting. If you really want that, then the GW IPs are not for you, because that's not what GW is trying to do.

Plus, the non-GW stuff, 90% of the time, is better written and makes more sense than the GW home-grown stuff. Seriously, MATT WARD - have you read the stuff coming out of GW-proper recently?

MILLANDSON said:

And Paramount/CBS certify all Star Trek novels, that doesn't mean there is any continuity whatsoever in there. A license just gives the publisher the right to slap a fancy logo on the cover and not get sued for making money with it.

MILLANDSON said:

No. That's an urban legend or wishful thinking propagated by a large part (perhaps even the majority) of 40k fans and quickly adopted because nobody bothers to do the research - but it's not what the people at GW themselves said. This is the third time I'm posting this:

"If the developers and other creative folks believe a contribution by an author fits the bill and has an appeal to the audience, why not fold it back into the ‘game’ world – such as Gaunt’s Ghosts or characters from the Gotrek and Felix series. On the other hand, if an author has a bit of a wobbly moment, there’s no pressure to feel that it has to be accepted into the worldview promulgated by the codexes and army books."
- Gav Thorpe on his blog

"In further conversation, George emphasized that Black Library’s main objective was to “tell good stories”. He agreed that some points in certain novels could, perhaps, have benefited from the editor’s red pen (a certain multilaser was mentioned) but was at pains to explain that, just as each hobbyist tends to interpret the background and facts of the Warhammer and 40k worlds differently, so does each author. In essence, each author represents an “alternative” version of the respective worlds. After pressing him further, he explained that only the Studio material (rulebooks, codexes, army books and suchlike) was canonical in that is HAD to be adhered-to in the plots and background of the novels. There was no obligation on authors to adhere to facts and events as spelled out in Black Library work."
- from an interview with George Mann, head of GW Publishing

In essence, just as in the saying "too many cooks spoil the broth" goes, too many independent authors destroy the consistency of the setting - which is why GW reserves the right to define it solely for its own team of writers, whereas BL/BI/FFG writers are free to try their hands at " interpretations ". Which, at times, may clash with what has been established by GW before (either due to missing research or because it was deemed advantageous), and what will be written by GW in the future, because they simply don't care much what somebody else made up.
You could regard it as "preventive damage control", as it gives GW the money from selling their licenses without actually having to "repair" any damage done to the setting by glaring contradictions (because as far as GW is concerned the damage never occurred).

I would also recommend this forum thread discussing the issue in detail: http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.php?showtopic=206072
Even the Deathwatch RPG gets mentioned there.

I can only hope that with each time I am posting this I am reaching more people to dispel the idea of a uniform canon. I have no clue whatsoever where that even came from.

MILLANDSON said:

Retcons sadly seem to be a part of any major IP - yet the power to make such changes to the universe should lie with the few people authorized to handle the setting, and not any writer who managed to get published by Black Library. And I do maintain that licensee products contain a lot more direct contradictions, including outright silliness (backflipping Terminators ftl).

If people want to play a Female Missionary let them. We play this game for fun, not really caring if it fits with the fluff. Our characters are fun to play because we add that unexpected twist to the very nature of that character.

Am I the only one that noticed the female Missionary on the cover of Into the Storm ? Look at her gear. There's a book that has an obvious illustration of the Emperor, one of those long band things that go around the neck with the Adeptus Ministorum symbols on the bottom (This Confessor model features a far fancier one: http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/File:Confessor.jpg ), and the various other Adeptus Ministorum symbols she has all over the place.

Regardless of that illustration, I see no reason why you can't have a female Missionary. Go for it.

Whether or not there a female Missionaries or not (and the vast Ecclesiarchy is not that uniform organisation it seems to be, factions and interpretations are rife), this should not be the slightest problem for a player character. If there are, it obviously is no problem. If there aren't, that will make the player all the more special. This remains fantasy RP, so we can be reasonably free with the rules and we should be reasonably free with our own rules, as each game maker tells us.

That being said, it seems from the background material that male Missionaries are more prevalent then females. Within the Warhammer Universe this does not seem unlogical, and if it might sound a tad politically incorrect, admist xenocides, commissars, penal colonies and psykers being fed each day to the Golden Throne it seems a less shocking question. Being more prevalent obviously does not mean they aren't there, and with the power of will and faith in the God-Emperor, even the physically weakest female missionary can convert planets and turn systems to the Ecclesiarchy. Just as a tottering half lame male missionary could, as long as his faith in the God-Emperor keeps him alive. And as the sisters of Battle show, there are quite a few women out there who are more then capable of looking after themselves in a fight. So, if you wish to play or portray them, I would say go right ahead.

Friedrich van Riebeeck, Navigator Pirmus, Heart of the Void

Thumbs up Lynata.

You did it way better than i could have done. (Ok i have a thesis that i must write as an excuse.....)

Oh well, but basically there are two tenets:

GW is the only power that is able to retcon a GW product.

Anything else is of equal canon value.

So if a 2nd party product contradicts a different 2nd party 40k product, they are both intepretations of the 40k lore.

If a GW product contradicts a GW product, its a retcon and the newer one is considered to be canon.

If a GW product contradicts a 2nd party product, the 2nd party simply has a (unfortunately) incorrect interpretation of the 40k lore.

Which means that FFG's products as a whole (if you combine DW with either RT/DH) are noncanon concerning bolters (sadly). I have a strong feeling that BC will be noncanon because of this as well.

The Mars class in RT is rather noncanon as well.

There is no equal fluff in 40k And Matt Ward is widely recognized as what he is. Simply a bad writer. But he is the bad writer at GW. (Same if you have a bad boss and everybody knows it. He is bad, but he holds the more iimportant position.)

Addendum: even if it is highly disuputed in the B&C thread, for me the word canon is just a word. I emply it, since its a known entity that seems useful. Regardless of GW usage of that word. (Reference Babylon 5 the discussion on the "definition" of jobless people (ok i know something of an insider))

You can certainly believe that, but since that is not GW's stance (I've met Alan Merret before at Nottingham, and asked him this very question - he's Head of IP, so whilst he doesn't write any of the IP personally, he'd surely know GW's stance on the subject) - *shrug* Nothing I say will convince you, but I've heard it from the horses' mouth.

Therefore, I'm not going to argue the point, as there's no need, but explicitly stating that only GW can contradict their own products, when they authorise all products, regardless of the source, and check them to ensure they fit with what they believe the canon should be, it seems clear that, if there are contradictions, it's because Games Workshop wants there to be, which would make your "rule" incorrect.

Heck. Sry some of this will read as a rant. Partly because it is. Youll recognize those parts. They are directed against the obvious company.

Ok since we apparently can only agree to disagree. (Considering Gav Thorpe, GW cant agree with itself as well apparently)

Allow me to reload my arguement cannon for a scatter shot.

GW is known for its money grubbing ways. I could simply reinterpret their stance as a whole: "they dont care attitude". We have your money for minis, what else do we need.

Long story short, RT is simply not 40k the tabletop. Which is not supposed to be. But please stop saying RT might be closer to the truth/heart of 40k than 40k itself. (Because said clause of everything is at the same level, would contradict that)

(And i hope no one pulls the tabletop marines are stunted in the tabletop arguement, you simply arent as good as a SM commander then. Its rather Matt Ward cant play SM, so he has to push the fluff into stupid levels and create this fluff against rules discussion.)

*hijack*

MILLANDSON said:

Is it possible you simply misunderstood him? It's always easier to analyze a written statement, and GW people generally seem very eager to "weasel around" the subject as to not make licensee products appear to have less value in terms of adding to the universe - which would be especially likely for a man who got money to promote the Deathwatch RPG. And given the posts in the Bolter & Chainsword forum, DW playtesters got told a very different thing when asking whether the RPGs are canon. Which seems to be in line with what the Head of Publishing said, what Gav Thorpe said, what Marc Gascogne said, slowly forming a coherent stance amongst the company and the "mercenary writers" doing license work - which is why I'm quite surprised why Alan Merret would have explicitly stated the contrary.

In some instances, it's also a case of author's solidarity: Take a look at Gav's blog I linked, for example; 90% of the article I pulled that quote from goes on about how cool BL books are, and how wrong it would be to disregard them, how you would do their writers a big injustice, etc ... and then throwing in two, three short sentences that go like "okay, so crap happens, but since they don't care what they write it doesn't matter for canon anyways". You can almost hear him lowering his voice as he says that.

Let me just finish with a simple question: Do you really, really, really want to accept every single licensee product as 100% canon, with the full right to overwrite GW's works? Careful, it's a Pandora's Box, and by opening it you will get such illustrious things as:

• backflipping Terminators
• Space Marines carrying multilasers as their default wargear
• average Marine height switching between 7 and 11 feet every other week
• Sisters of Battle drinking alcohol, playing cards and taking lovers because of boredom
• D-cannons suddenly firing projectiles
• PDF troopers carrying sniper boltguns
• lasguns capable of killing a Dreadnought
• Eldar falling in love with Space Marines
• Terminator Sergeants walking into battle with a missile launcher strapped to their back

Thanks, but I think I'll stick with GW... As I said, licensee publications came up with a lot of cool things worthy of adopting as well (and sometimes they even carry over into GW canon, as Gav wrote), but many bad things as well, which is why I'm quite lucky that such works are, by default, not regarded as official retcons but simply as "author interpretations", allowing me to dismiss them in good conscience.

Sorry for sidetracking the original topic - though it does seem pretty much resolved at this point. Perhaps the canon discussion would warrant a thread of its own?

so you would use GW canon to dictate the possible in a RPG that may or may not hold any relative bearing on the 40k universe. OK, guess the group I'm in will be throwing that concept out the air lock do to the Arch-militants custom man portable full length auto cannon. This is not D&D, If a character has a moment to do something over the top and slightly out of character it shouldn't be held against him. The setting for the 40k universe in the form of an RPG can't really hold to canon due to the fact that it in turn is being interpreted by players both with 40k experience and those with out it. Part of another issue the seems to bug me is the required 40k experience needed to play Orks or Kroot . You don't need out side experience to play an Elf, why restrict two classes due to a technicality.

As said it's a game played for nothing more than entertainment, In RT in particular you represent a party or collection of individuals that stand above the teeming masses of humanity free to forge there own path to wealth and power. It even states that they have the right to establish contact and trade with xenos, so in essence a xeno player experience or not should have that option

If every one would be so kind, please continue the thoughtful employment of a Female Missionary and how it completely fits into a friendly game.

I'm trying to figure out why this is even a discussion. Nowhere does it state that there are only male missionaries. As mentioned above, the only two solid "sexist" items are Space Marines are always male, and Sisters of Battle are always Female.

Horribly confused why this is even a discussion!

kenshin138 said:

And the Custodes are always male.

Lynata said:

First...

The solo Boltgun seems to be a PDF-special bolt weapon; they are more than mooks with autoguns (Imperial speed bump FTW!)

Second..

Pfff!.

Every Eldar knows that Vindicator Assassins are the hunkiest Mon'keigh ever, forget your Astartes!

Void_onion213 said:

Misunderstanding.

The statement was a response to the issue of "dictating the possible" by using license publications. Basically, what I'm saying is, if you want your game to run in accordance with the 40k canon as defined by GW, then you just have to differentiate between the sources, for they are not equal, as is often assumed.

Although I personally do prefer to see my games "dictated" by GW canon, this is by no means something that I would hold against other people. If a group prefers their game to include, say, female Space Marines, then that's simply their personal preference and nothing that should concern me. I'm just here to advise, for the thread did indicate that people were interested about how things are supposed to look when these "dictates" apply.

Tl;dr: We all know that nobody will get sued for not following canon. That was not the point here.

I agree, however, that this discussion - should there actually be a need to continue it - may not belong here. Though I don't really see what else could still be added in response to the original question (given that there is nothing indicating women cannot become Missionaries, GW *or* otherwise) and it is quite normal that forum threads evolve away from their original purpose, it would still be better to either create a new thread for the debate or continue via private messages rather than to needlessly annoy at least one person. Apologies if one of my posts had this effect on you - this is not my intention.

Lynata said:

George Mann's quote however if it was correct there would be no contradiction ever in the novels.