AluminiumWolf said:

No? As I've said - I flat out told my players that their characters were non-sexual creatures, and they liked it. When discussion was entered into, they preferred it. Because they're not playing a game where they're roleplaying as massive cocked fuckmonsters, with giant sacks of bulging muscles and giant phallus weaponry. They're playing genetically engineered killing machines, who in their downtime balance the fact that they have been mass constructed as living weapons with the fact that they have dim memories of emotions and families.

The fact that they can't **** a hole in a Land Raider isn't something ANY playing group I game with consider a negative. The closest any of them have come to it is joking that the Black Templar would be the most considerate lover because he down't have a Betchers Gland.

The fun in the game I am currently running doesn't come from adolescent escapism. We aren't playing characters we wish we could be; we're playing characters and running a game that have awesome set pieces ,character development and - modesty be damned - a gm with a damned fine story.

As an interrogator said to the group, when they were pushing for informations, "You aren't people, you are things. Weapons built to protect real men and women. I do not give my intentions to things. I do not discuss my plans with weapons.".

Astartes do not need to breed - they have Geneseed. They don't fraternise with those outside their monastery - they train. Some chapters are different, those that attempt to maintain their humanity may still have longing, feelings. The Space Wolves might still attempt to chat up pretty girls, because that's what manly men do. A Salamander might adopt a family, to keep them safe from the outside world. Those chapters are known abberations, exceptions that prove the rule.

AluminiumWolf said:

Well obviously, almost everything guys do including war and fighting is on the way to nailing more girls. Eunuchs are only created by other people, you know like the an Emperor of humanity or something.

Honestly, I had never even bothered to contemplate whats between a Space Marines legs. it doesn't matter either way. I just took it that they couldn't or wouldn't have sex and didn't reproduce sexually.

You're a bit of enigma AW, most of the time you are trying to tell us that Space Marines are grotesquely large which makes this newly reveled interest in their junk a bit wierd.

I can't be alone in picking up a RPG about power armour super soldiers and not really be missing plotlines about going to lady Buttersworths soiree.

And despite your insistance that they would a laughing stock your seem to be the only one who's ever had a problem with it.

Face Eater said:

Uh… the next mission I'm running for my guys starts with the kill-team being a very uncomfortable retinue for an inquisitor as that inquisitor attends a Pride and Prejudice style soiree…

Sure, they're not doing it to get laid, they're attepting to root out a xenophillious cult, but that's not the point

+++++We aren't playing characters we wish we could be+++++

I would argue that a fair number of people are going to want to, and for those people, being intact is probably important. Or maybe it is just me. But they did make that 'I am a Space Marine' commercial, which implies someone involved thinks people might want to pretend to be Space Marines.

+++++The fact that they can't **** a hole in a Land Raider isn't something ANY playing group I game with consider a negative.+++++

You have to admit that would be kinda cool though.

+++++You're a bit of enigma AW, most of the time you are trying to tell us that Space Marines are grotesquely large which makes this newly reveled interest in their junk a bit wierd.+++++

No, it is consistent. I think The Hulk is awesome. I think having a working ***** is considerably cooler than not having a working *****.

I dunno. I think Marines should be aspirational.

I mean, doesn't everyone want to be a narrow minded ultra facist catholic space nazi bodybuilder?

Kylan, I think you're skewing towards the opposite end of the spectrum for your criticism.

It's not that every player will want to play a sexualized SM, or that every game will deal with that stuff. It's that that is the sort of characterization detail that is best left to the player in getting into his character's head, not removed by the GM from the get-go.

In my current game, 4 players are pretty much running them as eunuchs. The other two have taken a slightly different approach. I'm happy for the blend and the drama that has resulted.

Kshatriya said:

Honestly? That's almost certainly the case. As has been pointed out before though, AWolf and I are basically the opposite side of any spectrum you care to mention when it comes to astartes

I'll acknowledge my bias - won't stop me trying to win an argument on the internet that has absolutely no acceptable victory conditions and, should victory be claimed by one side or the other, grants no rewards other than a cold and hollow feeling satisfaction that someone, somewhere, has been destroyed by my scathing rhetoric.

Huh.

When I put it like that…

--

Like I say, if you actually think it is cool to play a eunuch I am totally fine with that. But I am not in to it and don't want to.

That's the point I'm having trouble letting go of. I'm not playing an eunich. That's a state that describes castrated humans. Being astartes means being transhuman. Beyond human. The lack of secual ability isn't something that I believe makes a difference for the astartes - the interesting parts of their psychology aren't tied to their physiology.

professor_kylan said:

Well, does his **** work?

He's not human - does it matter?

Totally .

Eunuch is probably the wrong word, because I believe eunuchs were still capable of lust.

I think the right term (or perhaps just a somewhat closer-to-true term) is "chemically castrated asexual."

Which confirms there's no point to this argument. You're insisting that the transhuman war machine needs a giant throbbing cock to count as a character, I'm arguing that the muscle bound ubermench is basically a sexless creature.

I'm going to leave it there as every time I've attempted to write a second paragraph to this post it's come across like a personal insult, and I really don't want to be that guy on the interwebs. My players and I prefer playing eunuchs, according to your use of the term, and it's enhanced our game. We consider our characters more interesting because of it. It's fairly clear that my group and your group are not compatible, which I consider a shame.

professor_kylan said:

To be fair there are not a lot of ways to express concepts like 'I don't want my favourite self insertion character type to be completely useless to a woman' without sounding more than a little pathetic, but I feel it needs to be said.

professor_kylan said:

That's not what I'm arguing at all, and if you noticed, my position is explicitly not AW's. I think you're projecting too much of your personal distaste to actually see what I'm saying, so I don't see a point in continuing this conversation.

That was in answer to Awolf, not you Kshatriya - I've got no complaints about your most moderate view. I wouldn't run it myself, but I'd play in it. It's Awolf's view that is incompatible with mine. Sorry for the confusion - looks like you posted just before I did!

Heh, no worries. I don't agree with a lot of AWolf's extreme views, but I do enjoy reading them and the debates they create.

To be fair to AWolf, he has pretty consistant opinions on a range of topics. He definately has his own view of Space Marines, and it's not ours but in the end it's really just a game, and we don't play in his so there's room for all of it. There are interesting story elements to add to whichever side you fall on, like in my group I have one of each that are capable and desirous of sex, capable but not desirous, and one no comment, and honestly none of those options really hurt the story in my opinion. Each comes with it's own sets of advantages and limitations, but we're all creative and obviously passionate people, so I'm sure it can all work.

AWolf, thank you for answering my questions, although it seems I came late to quite a discussion I appreciate you clearing those up for me. Honestly, I never would have thought to insult Astartes on basis of sexuality. mostly because seeing them and thier abilities play out over so many games, I wouldn't have thought it mattered whether they could or even cared to get their noodle wet, their self view of masculinity might be different from mine and when their bullets are the size of an adolescant's hand and explodes when it penatrates your torso, I wouldn't be likley to say anything untoward to them at all.

Lionus said:

Well, the subject of 'can Marines have sex?' comes up fairly regularly on forums, and I would swear the subtext behind asking the question is always 'because it is really ******* funny if they can't' and not 'because it opens up a lot of interesting story options and makes them cool and awesome if they can't'.

I at least think it is worth considering.

A big draw for me to play space marine characters is that it makes me work out how a transhuman supersoldier trained for unending war actually thinks. Since space marines aren't autonomous killing machines, the topic bears some thought. They lack normal human motivations such as interest in reproduction, which has a huge impact on their psychology. I find the idea of how then do they think fascinating. If I want to play a character who actually has a sex drive, there are plenty of non-mechanicus mortals in the 40k rpg lines. And even some of the mechanicus are still interested.

Decessor said:

But I don't like them, I like Space Marines. And Marines are far and away GWs most popular characters, so telling people to play something else doesn't really work. Presumably people came for the Space Marines.

Look, as much as anything, the romance/relationships/lust/sex content of 40k is increasing. There is quite a lot of it in Helsreach for instance. And Ciaphas Cain.

In light of this, I think GW really needs to think about whether they want their cash cows to be a part of it, or allow it to become very apparent that Marines are boys in a world of men.

AluminiumWolf said:

We aren't at all, just for that particular character motivation or story aspact is for another game. Part of playing super soldier is playing a different mindset, motivations are about a nearly all consuming dedication to something larger than yourself. Just playing a Marine to play a regular dude who just so happens be super strong that's kind of missing the point.

AluminiumWolf said:

AluminiumWolf said:

Nowhere am I telling anyone to play anything. I'm describing how fascinating I find playing the space marine's removal from humanity. Their lack of sexual motivation alone is a radical difference between them and humanity, and forces thought on what motivations they *do* have.

The definition of a man in the real world as solely about getting laid would be limiting enough (and simplistic to my mind). But as far as I'm concerned space marines have literally a different set of standards. It's like trying to mock an AI for not having organic parts or an ork for not being a pacifist, sex is just irrelevant to their nature.

--

I dunno. I think they want to be very careful about stuff that makes Marines less aspirational. Would you want to be a Marine if it mean't being a chemically castrated asexual. Eunuch. Whatever?